ls_get_run_url

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the core behavior: it generates a shareable URL from a run ID and provides an example of the returned format. It does not mention potential errors or side effects, but for this simple utility, the behavioral contract is adequately transparent.

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-purpose, front-loaded sentence followed by a standard Args/Returns structure. Every sentence is necessary, with zero wasted words.

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 simplicity (one required parameter) and the presence of a Returns section describing the output with an example, the description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Sibling tools are different enough that no further context is needed.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), and the description compensates by documenting `run_id` as 'Run ID to generate URL for (required)', adding semantic meaning beyond the bare type and requirement.

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 states a specific verb ('Generate'), the resource ('a shareable LangSmith UI URL'), and the target ('for a run'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list or read runs.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or any exclusion criteria. It implies usage through its clear purpose, but lacks direct guidance, making this the minimum viable score of 3.

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