Get a dashboard.furiosa.dev/tactic-debug URL for two commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool constructs a link rather than performing a comparison, and that short shas are accepted at the input boundary. It does not state whether it validates commit existence, performs any network activity, or what exact string is returned, but for a URL builder this is a minimal viable level of transparency.

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 two short sentences, both informative: the first states the tool's action, and the second adds a practical input detail. No filler or redundant phrasing is present.

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 is a simple URL builder, the full parameter schema covers all invocation semantics, and the description explains the core action, the definition is nearly complete. The main gap is that it does not help an agent choose between this and the other compare/viewer URL tools, but that is partly addressed by the specific tactic-debug domain in the title.

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 every parameter already has explicit meaning in the input schema. The description's only parameter-related addition is 'Accepts short-shas directly,' which reinforces the sha format but does not fundamentally add semantics beyond the schema's minLength/maxLength and 'short-sha' descriptions.

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 ('Build'), a specific resource ('tactic-debug compare link'), and the input relationship ('base vs current commit'). The title additionally names the exact dashboard domain, and the tool is clearly distinct from sibling URL builders like get_ir_viewer_compare_url and get_tc_viewer_url.

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 implies the obvious use case—building a tactic-debug compare link for two commits—and adds a practical constraint ('Accepts short-shas directly'). It does not, however, explicitly say when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as get_ir_viewer_compare_url or compare_commits, so the when/when-not guidance is only implicit.

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