dossier_redirects

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: follows Location headers with fetch (no auto-redirect), 5s per hop, and stops at 10 hops to prevent infinite loops. It also details the return format (CheckResult with success/error).

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, when to use, and how it behaves. No redundant words; information is front-loaded.

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 output schema, the description covers functionality, use cases, behavioral limits, and return structure. It is self-contained and sufficient for agent invocation.

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% with a clear description for 'domain'. The description adds 'starting from https://<domain>/' which might imply protocol handling, but this slightly conflicts with schema stating protocol prefixes are rejected. No significant added value beyond 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 states it 'Trace the full HTTP redirect chain starting from https://<domain>/', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., dns_lookup, dossier_headers) by focusing on redirect chains.

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?

Explicitly lists use cases: 'debug redirect loops, verify HTTP→HTTPS upgrades, or audit link shorteners'. It mentions the 10-hop limit but does not specify when not to use or compare with specific siblings.

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