project_dir_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses single-use semantics, 5-minute expiry, HTTP 410 on expired/used links, the exact command to run, the folder contents, and Docker-context caveats. It stops short of documenting required permissions or other preconditions, but the core behavior is substantially explained.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers in the command, key-handling rule, Docker context guidance, and expiry behavior. It is dense but mostly earns its length; the phrase 'Answers a link that works once' is slightly awkward but not wasteful overall.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a one-parameter schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the returned link, its lifetime, the unpacking command, and error behavior. The main omission is that the 'name' parameter is not explicitly described, though it can be inferred from the HTTP path.

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% for the single required 'name' parameter, so the description must compensate. The endpoint path '/sandboxes/{name}/project-link' implies that 'name' is the sandbox name, but the description never explicitly defines it, gives its format, or says where to obtain it, leaving a clear gap.

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 identifies the resource as a single-use link to the project's .p7y folder containing Docker keys, and specifies the 5-minute lifetime. It is specific enough to distinguish the operation from most siblings, but it does not explicitly name adjacent tools such as rotate_docker_keys or get_sandbox_ssh_key to rule them out.

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 gives operational guidance once the tool is selected: run the curl/tar command yourself, never copy a key, re-create the Docker context after new keys or TLS errors, and request a new link after a 410. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus sibling alternatives such as rotate_docker_keys, leaving tool selection largely implied.

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