get_flag_url

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that names or IDs can be passed, that resolution of IDs occurs, and that specific env vars are required because certain IDs are not API-exposed. This goes beyond basic purpose.

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: first states purpose succinctly, second provides usage details and prerequisites. No filler words, 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?

Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, parameters, and prerequisites adequately. It lacks mention of output format or error cases, but for a simple URL builder it is sufficient.

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%, but the description adds meaning by stating parameters can be 'name or id' and that resolution happens. This adds value beyond the schema's basic type 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Build a deep-link to a feature flag's definition in the Harness FME web UI.' The verb 'build' and resource 'deep-link to a feature flag's definition' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_feature_flag or list_feature_flags.

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 explains when to use by specifying required parameters (workspace, flag, environment) and prerequisites (MCP_HARNESS_FME_ACCOUNT_ID and MCP_HARNESS_FME_ORG_GUID env vars). It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but context is clear for this URL-building tool.

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