get_run_public_link

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Get or create' matches that. However, the description adds context about external sharing but does not disclose idempotency (idempotentHint=false) or what happens if the link already exists. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and the description adds moderate value.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and resource. It is front-loaded with the key verb and object, and contains no extraneous information.

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 has 2 required parameters, no output schema, and annotations present, the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does but does not explain side effects, return value, or when creation vs retrieval occurs. The openWorldHint annotation suggests side effects, but the description lacks this nuance.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters (code and id). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, such as how the code/id relate to a test run. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get or create' and the resource 'public link for sharing a test run externally'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_run_public_link, and explicitly specifies the scope (test run, externally).

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 does not mention prerequisites, conditions for getting vs creating, or contrast with sibling tools like delete_run_public_link or other sharing mechanisms.

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