chat_link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the output (URL and prompt) and implies read-only behavior via 'Get', but it does not mention auth requirements, error handling, or side effects. No contradictions with annotations since none exist.

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?

One sentence, 11 words, front-loaded with the verb. It is direct and to the point, with no wasted words.

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 one-parameter tool, the description covers the main purpose and output. However, it lacks any note about prerequisites (e.g., chat existence) or the output structure, and without an output schema, more detail would help the agent use it confidently.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only references 'a chat id' without adding format, constraints, or examples beyond the property name. This provides minimal added semantic value.

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 function (Get), the resource (shareable join URL + peer prompt), and the scope (for a chat id). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like join_chat or chat_say by its specific output.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need a shareable link and prompt for a chat. It does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, but the context is clear enough for a simple retrieval tool.

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