redirect_chain_audit

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate safeness (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), but the description adds valuable behavioral details: 'without auto-following 3xx', the type of issues flagged (loops, mixed-protocol, etc.), and the default hop cap. This goes beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, each contributing distinct information: primary action, return data and flags, and default limit. No fluff, efficiently front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Without an output schema, the description sufficiently covers return fields and issue flags. It explains behavior (no auto-follow) and defaults. Minor gap: does not specify output format (e.g., array of objects) but still adequate for typical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. The description reiterates the default value for max_redirects and the URL type, adding minimal new meaning. Baseline score applies since no contradiction and schema handles most semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action ('Walk the redirect chain') and specifies the resource ('a URL'). It lists exact return data (status, location, elapsed_ms) and issue flags, making it distinct from sibling tools that manage redirect rules.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for auditing redirect chains but does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools like cf_list_redirects (listing existing redirect rules) or cf_create_redirect. No explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.