get_result_file_urls

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions generating URLs but doesn't specify whether these URLs are ephemeral or persistent, require authentication, have rate limits, or what happens if the file doesn't exist. For a tool that likely involves access control and network operations, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose without any redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, and parameter nuances. The presence of an output schema means return values are documented elsewhere, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the gaps in annotations and low schema coverage.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'computation_id' identifies the computation and 'file_path' specifies the file, but doesn't clarify the format of 'file_path' (e.g., relative path, naming conventions) or provide examples. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's titles, resulting in a baseline score for partial compensation.

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 action ('Generate view and download URLs') and the target resource ('for a specific result file from a computation'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_data_asset_file_urls' or 'download_and_read_a_file_from_computation', which handle similar file operations but on different resources or with different outputs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a completed computation), exclusions (e.g., not for data assets), or compare to siblings like 'list_computation_results' for discovering files or 'download_and_read_a_file_from_computation' for direct access. Usage is implied but not specified.

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