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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the 50-URL limit which is useful context, but doesn't describe what happens on success/failure, whether URLs are validated, if the operation is atomic, what permissions are needed, or what the response format looks like. For a batch creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each add value. The first sentence states the core purpose and benefit, the second provides an important constraint. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 batch creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what gets returned, how errors are handled, whether the operation is transactional, or what authentication/rate limits apply. The efficiency benefit and URL limit are helpful but insufficient for proper agent usage.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema - it mentions the 50-URL limit which is already in the schema's maxItems constraint. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: '批量创建多个短网址' (batch create multiple short URLs) with the efficiency benefit mentioned. It specifies the resource (short URLs) and verb (create in batch), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'create_short_url' tool beyond mentioning batch capability.

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 implies usage context by mentioning '提高创建效率' (improve creation efficiency) and the 50-URL limit, suggesting this should be used for bulk operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. the sibling 'create_short_url' tool or provide clear alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a new short URL and lists supported features, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this is a write operation (implied but not explicit), what permissions are needed, what happens on success/failure, rate limits, or what the return value looks like (no output schema). The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient Chinese sentence that states the core purpose and lists key features. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from features.

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 mutation tool (creating resources) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what gets returned, error conditions, or behavioral constraints. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for using this tool is inadequate given its complexity and lack of structured metadata.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly with descriptions, examples, and constraints. The description mentions the same parameters (custom domain, short code, title, description) but adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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: '创建一个新的短网址' (create a new short URL). It specifies the action (create) and resource (short URL), and lists supported features (custom domain, short code, title, description). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like batch_create_short_urls, which creates multiple URLs at once.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like batch_create_short_urls for bulk operations or get_url_info for retrieving existing URLs. There's no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use this tool.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates key behavioral traits: it is a destructive operation ('删除后无法恢复' meaning cannot be recovered after deletion) and requires caution ('请谨慎操作' meaning please operate carefully). This covers safety aspects well, though it could add more context like authentication needs or rate limits for a higher score.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two short sentences that directly state the purpose and critical warning. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without any waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured for an AI agent.

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 the tool's complexity (a destructive delete operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description does a good job of covering key aspects: purpose, irreversible nature, and caution. However, it could be more complete by mentioning potential side effects (e.g., impact on linked data) or response format, which would help the agent understand the full context better.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'id' parameter fully documented in the schema ('要删除的短网址ID' meaning short URL ID to delete). The description does not add any additional meaning or details beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter semantics adequately.

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 specific action ('删除' meaning delete) and resource ('指定的短网址' meaning specified short URL), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_short_url, batch_create_short_urls, get_url_info, and list_short_urls. It precisely communicates what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 provides clear context for usage by warning that deletion is irreversible ('删除后无法恢复'), implying this tool should be used cautiously and only when permanent removal is intended. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives (e.g., for temporary deactivation or other operations), nor does it name specific sibling tools as alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states this is a read operation ('获取'), it doesn't mention potential constraints like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), or what happens if the ID doesn't exist. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states the purpose and lists examples of returned information (original URL, click statistics, creation time). It's front-loaded with the core function and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the examples for clarity.

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 the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and hints at return values, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like errors or constraints. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context on what '详细信息' entails and any usage limitations to be fully complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'id' well-documented in the schema as '短网址的唯一标识ID' (unique identifier ID for short URL). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as format details or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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: '根据短网址ID获取详细信息' (get detailed information based on short URL ID). It specifies the verb '获取' (get/retrieve) and resource '详细信息' (detailed information), and lists examples of what information is included. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_short_urls' which might provide similar information in a different format.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_short_urls' (which might list multiple URLs without details) or 'batch_create_short_urls' (for creation). There's no context about prerequisites, such as needing an existing short URL ID, or when this tool is preferred over others.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what information is returned (configuration and status) but doesn't describe important behaviors like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no domains exist. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the key information ('获取所有可用的域名列表'). Every word 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?

For a simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal information. It states what the tool does and what information it returns, but lacks behavioral context that would be helpful given the absence of annotations. Without an output schema, the description should ideally provide more detail about return format, but it only mentions '配置信息和状态' without specifics.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing non-existent parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema handles everything.

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 action ('获取所有可用的域名列表' - get all available domain list) and the resource ('域名' - domains), including what information is returned ('域名配置信息和状态' - domain configuration information and status). It distinguishes from siblings like list_short_urls by focusing on domains rather than URLs. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other domain-related tools (none in sibling list), so it's not a perfect 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or comparison with other tools. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions pagination support, it doesn't describe important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what the response format looks like (since there's no output schema). For a listing tool with filtering capabilities, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool actually behaves.

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 a single, efficient Chinese sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('列出用户的短网址列表') followed by the key capabilities ('支持分页、域名筛选和关键词搜索'). Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it immediately scannable and understandable.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. While it states what the tool does at a high level, it doesn't provide enough context about authentication requirements, response format, error handling, or practical usage examples. The agent would need to guess about important operational aspects of this listing tool.

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%, so the schema already fully documents all 4 parameters with descriptions, constraints, and examples. The description mentions the three filtering parameters (pagination, domain filtering, keyword search) but adds no additional semantic information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage situations.

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 ('列出' - list) and resource ('用户的短网址列表' - user's short URL list), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_url_info' (which likely gets details of a specific URL) by focusing on listing multiple items with filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly mention how it differs from 'list_domains' (which lists domains rather than URLs).

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 implies usage context through the mention of filtering capabilities (domain filtering and keyword search), suggesting this tool should be used when needing filtered lists rather than all URLs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_url_info' for single URL details or 'list_domains' for domain management. No explicit 'when-not' guidance is provided.

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