Roo — get shortlink

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' strongly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state that the tool is non-mutating or describe behavior for invalid or missing ids. This is reasonable guess for a getter, but not fully 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?

A single sentence front-loads the main action and scope, then follows with a dash-separated list of meaningful returned fields. No filler or restating of schema content; every element 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 single-parameter, single-purpose getter with no output schema, the description covers almost everything an agent needs: what it returns, for what id type, and the scope of the operation. The only notable omissions are explicit not-found/error semantics and a fully explicit read-only statement, but those are minor and highly predictable given the verb 'fetch'.

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 already provides a clear description for 'id': 'Shortlink id (as returned by create or list).' This tells the agent the parameter's source and format. The tool description adds no additional detail about the id parameter itself, so the baseline 3 for high-schema coverage 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 begins with a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one shortlink by id'), then enumerates the concrete details it returns: destination, custom domain, click count, permanence, folder, description, and add-ons. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like roo_list_shortlinks or roo_get_qr_code.

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 phrase 'by id' implies the agent needs to already know a specific shortlink id, and the 'one shortlink' scope suggests this is not for listing or creating. However, the description never explicitly states when to use this over roo_list_shortlinks or mentions any alternatives or exclusions, leaving the choice somewhat to inference.

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