get_raw_url

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 does well by specifying the temporary nature (10-minute expiration) and authentication bypass capability, but doesn't mention rate limits, error conditions, or what happens after expiration. For a tool that generates access URLs with security implications, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 communicates the core functionality, key constraints (temporary, no authentication), and expiration timeframe. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal coverage. It explains what the tool does and key behavioral aspects, but doesn't describe the return format (what the raw URL looks like) or potential error conditions. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but leaves operational details unspecified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'context_id' parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score of 3 for good schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Generate a temporary raw URL') and resource ('for a context'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_context or list_contexts. It precisely defines the tool's unique function of creating an unauthenticated access URL rather than retrieving context data directly.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('accessed without authentication', 'expires in 10 minutes'), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives. It implies this is for temporary sharing scenarios rather than persistent access, which helps differentiate from other context tools.

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