get_upload_link

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

The description fully discloses behavioral traits: the link requires no login, is reusable, scoped to one event, and photos are automatically resized. It also describes the workflow for the photographer, including the folder upload option. No annotations exist to contradict.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and returns a clear explanation. While relatively long, each sentence provides necessary context or guidance. A slight reduction in detail could improve conciseness, but structure remains effective.

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 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, behavior, usage workflow, and even hints at alternative scenarios. Minor missing details (e.g., error handling for invalid event ID) do not significantly detract.

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 one parameter (event_id) with 100% schema coverage description. The tool's description adds minimal additional meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'scoped to this one event'), but baseline for high coverage is 3. No significant extra semantic value is provided.

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's purpose: 'Get a no-login "tap-to-upload" link for an event.' It distinguishes itself from sibling upload tools (upload_photos_from_paths, etc.) by providing a link for the photographer to upload, rather than uploading 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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('THIS IS THE WAY TO UPLOAD when you can't read the photographer's local files') and when not to ('anywhere except a locally-installed Claude Desktop with the findme-mcp filesystem tool'). It provides clear instructions on how to use the returned link.

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