hydra_share_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the code is embedded in the link (base64 of URI-encoded code), nothing is uploaded, and very long pieces produce very long links. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand side effects and constraints.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then provides necessary technical details (base64 format, verification) and a key constraint (nothing uploaded, long links) in a compact second paragraph. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential context: what the link contains, how it's built, and what it does NOT do (upload to gallery). The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe the output format (the link itself), but the output schema likely covers that, and the description's mention of 'link' is sufficient.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no parameter semantics. The description compensates by explaining what the tool does with the current document/editor state, which is the implicit input. Since there are no parameters to document, the description's explanation of the implicit input (current piece/editor text) is sufficient.

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 purpose: it creates a hydra.ojack.xyz link that opens the current piece in the official Hydra editor. It specifies the resource (Hydra editor link), the action (share/open), and distinguishes it from gallery uploads. The title 'Share Link' and sibling context further reinforce this.

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 explains when this tool is used: to share the current piece via a link, and explicitly notes that nothing is uploaded to the gallery. It also mentions that when the primary is an existing Hydra tab, its own editor text is used. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, though the gallery-upload exclusion is a useful contrast.

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