incident_well_known_url

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It clearly indicates a safe read-only computation (constructing a URL) with no side effects. Lacks details about error handling or validation, but behavior is straightforward and predictable.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. Very concise, but could benefit from explaining the origin parameter's role. Still, it is efficient and clear.

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 simple URL builder, the description is mostly adequate but lacks explanation of the origin parameter and output format. Given no output schema, the description should ideally clarify what the tool returns. It is incomplete for a tool that requires two parameters.

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 50% (only incident_id has description). The tool description does not explain the origin parameter or how it is used in URL construction. It adds no semantic value beyond the schema, missing crucial information about a required parameter.

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?

Description clearly states it computes the canonical well-known URL for an AI Incident Card, with the exact path template. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like incident_fetch or other well-known URL builders.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like incident_fetch or other well-known URL tools. The context implies it is for URL generation before fetching, but no exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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