Link de previzualizare

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses meaningful behavior: the link is temporary, expires after 'minute' (default 60), and is not indexed. It also clarifies that the preview shows the draft as it will appear, not the current live state. These lifecycle details are genuinely valuable and not present in the annotations or schema.

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?

One information-dense sentence packs in purpose, preview scope, expiry control, default value, and indexing behavior with no filler. The structure is slightly run-on, but every element earns its place and the key facts are front-loaded.

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 flat 3-parameter tool with no nested objects, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, expiry, and indexing behavior. The main gap is the absence of an explicit statement of the return value (the generated URL) — implied by the title but never confirmed — and no mention of failure behavior for an unknown slug.

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 covers 'tip' and 'slug' with rich descriptions (67% coverage), and the description compensates for the undocumented 'minute' parameter by explaining that it controls link expiry with a default of 60. It does not merely repeat schema content — it adds the behavioral meaning of the one parameter the schema leaves unexplained.

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 states a precise purpose: generating a temporary link that shows a draft or scheduled item exactly as it will appear on the site before publishing. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'publica' (publish), 'citeste' (read), and 'cauta' (search) — it is neither a content mutation nor a retrieval tool, but a preview-link generator.

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 phrase 'înainte de publica' (before publish) and the mention of drafts ('ciornă') and scheduled items ('element programat') give a clear usage context: use it for pre-publish review, not for live content. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use cases, such as when the content is already live.

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