platform

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

Absent annotations, the description discloses two behavioral traits: 'No server round-trip' and an error condition for self-hosted servers. It does not detail authentication needs, return format, or side effects. This adds some value beyond the empty schema but leaves gaps.

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?

Three short sentences each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, noting an error condition, and clarifying no network call. There is no fluff, and every sentence earns its place.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the return value (URL), an error condition, and a performance characteristic (no round-trip). It is nearly complete but could briefly mention that the URL should be presented as a clickable link.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage (trivial), the description has no need to add parameter meaning. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and the description appropriately does not introduce irrelevant parameter details.

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 returns the URL of the managed LTM platform's web dashboard for surfacing to the user. It identifies the specific verb 'return' and resource 'URL', making the purpose unambiguous. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like push or publish, which are mutation-focused.

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 mentions an error condition ('Errors when the user is configured against a self-hosted server') but does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied by the purpose, but no when-not-to or alternative guidance is provided.

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