generate_resource_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, meaning no data modification. The description adds value by detailing the return content (URL with group hierarchy, resource details) and explaining that clicking navigates correctly. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with bold headers and bullet points, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, achieving conciseness.

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?

With one parameter, no output schema, and annotations present, the description covers return value format, usage guidelines, workflow, and related tools. It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter deviceId described as 'The ID of the resource/device.' The description mentions using deviceId in the workflow but does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 verb 'Generate' and the resource 'direct URL/link/weburl for a LogicMonitor resource/device.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_alert_link by specifying the target object type.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' bullet points list specific scenarios (incident tickets, alerts, reports). Workflow instructs to first find device using list/search, then use this tool. Related tools list provides alternatives.

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