generate_deeplink

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. It states the tool generates a URL but does not describe what the output looks like (e.g., format, structure), any side effects (e.g., if it creates or modifies resources), authentication needs, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with 8 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an example of optimal conciseness for a basic description.

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 complexity (8 parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter semantics, output format, behavioral traits, or usage context. For a tool that likely generates URLs with specific structures and dependencies, more detail is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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 0%, meaning none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any information about parameter meanings, usage, or relationships (e.g., how 'type' influences other parameters like 'dashboardUid' or 'panelId'). This leaves parameters largely undocumented, failing to compensate for the schema 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a deeplink URL for Grafana dashboards, panels, or explore view.' It specifies the verb ('generate') and resource ('deeplink URL') with the target context ('Grafana dashboards, panels, or explore view'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'generate_dashboard_url', 'generate_panel_url', or 'generate_explore_url', which appear to serve similar purposes, preventing a score of 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. It mentions the types of deeplinks (dashboard, panel, explore) but does not specify when to choose this tool over sibling tools like 'generate_dashboard_url' or 'generate_panel_url', nor does it outline any prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of contextual guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.

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