Get an IR Text Viewer dashboard URL

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses a non-ovious internal behavior: short-sha resolution to full commit sha via master_commits. It also clarifies that the tool does not run anything locally, which is useful behavioral context for an agent. It does not mention error cases or output format, but the 'link' outcome is clear.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the additional sha-resolution detail is placed in the second sentence. Every clause adds value.

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 simple URL-builder tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is fairly complete: it states the purpose, the inputs, and one non-previous internal step. It could be more complete by explicitly naming sibling alternatives or stating failure modes, but the essential information for an agent to invoke it correctly is present.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a small but meaningful semantic detail: the short-sha is resolved to the full commit sha required by the viewer URL, explaining why the sha parameter has min/max lengths. The test and context parameters are referenced in passing but are already fully described in the schema.

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 identifies the action ('Build'), the resource ('dashboard.furiosa.dev/ir-text-viewer link'), and the required inputs ('commit + context + test'). It also distinguishes the tool's job—producing a browser-openable URL rather than executing local work—from the related URL-builder siblings.

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 gives clear context for when to use it ('when you want a browser-openable IR text viewer link instead of running locally'), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, even though sibling tools like get_ir_viewer_compare_url and get_tc_viewer_url exist. This is implied rather than explicit.

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