Get link

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

With no annotations provided, the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a non-destructive read operation, but it fails to mention potential error states (e.g., not found), response structure, or any rate limits. The bare minimum is covered, but additional context would improve transparency.

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 a single sentence of 9 words, efficiently conveying the essential purpose without extraneous information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains what the tool does and how to identify the link. However, it could mention the return type (e.g., link object) to fully close the loop for an agent.

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 input schema describes the parameter 'id' as 'The numeric id of the link.' with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Given full schema coverage, a score of 3 (baseline) is appropriate.

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 'Fetch a single short link by its numeric id.' This specifies the verb (fetch), resource (single short link), and method of identification (numeric id). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like delete_link, list_links, and shorten_url, which operate on the same resource but with different actions.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage when the numeric id is known, but it does not exclude scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate, such as listing all links or deleting a link. The lack of alternative suggestions or context-aware recommendations leaves the agent without clear boundaries.

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