Get a dashboard.furiosa.dev/tc-viewer URL for two commits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It communicates that this is a URL-building operation and clarifies the parameter expectations, but it does not state the exact return value shape, whether any network/auth is involved, or possible failure modes. A bit more explicit behavioral detail would be valuable given the lack of annotations.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence immediately provides the most useful differentiating detail. Every sentence 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 low-complexity URL-construction tool with a complete schema and no output schema, the description gives what an agent needs to select and call the tool: what it builds, which commit params it uses, and how it differs from other compare viewers. The main gap is that 'the other two compare viewers' are not named explicitly, though the sibling tool list supplies that context.

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 documents all four parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic distinction by warning that context/test must be a single value (not comma-paired) and that baseSha/currentSha are separate params, which prevents a common misuse pattern across sibling compare viewers.

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 action ('Build a tc-viewer compare link') and identifies the exact resource (a dashboard.furiosa.dev/tc-viewer URL). It also frames the tool as a base-vs-current commit comparison, which distinguishes it from URL/recipe builders like get_ir_viewer_url and build_ir_view_recipe_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 explicitly contrasts tc-viewer with 'the other two compare viewers' by explaining its parameter shape: a single context/test value and separate sha/baseSha params. This gives decision-relevant context for choosing among compare tools, though it does not name the sibling tools explicitly or provide a precise 'use X instead when...' rule.

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