generate_explore_url

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 doesn't describe what the URL is used for, whether it's a read-only operation, what format the URL takes, or any side effects. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 front-loads the core purpose. There is no wasted verbiage or redundancy. It directly states what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (6 parameters, 1 required), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain the Explore view context, parameter interactions, expected output format, or error conditions. For a URL-generation tool with multiple optional parameters, more contextual information is needed.

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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description only vaguely mentions 'optional datasource and query', which maps to datasourceUid and query parameters, but ignores the other 4 parameters (from, to, refresh, queryType). It adds minimal value beyond the parameter names, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Generate a URL') and the target ('for the Explore view'), with mention of optional parameters ('with optional datasource and query'). It distinguishes from siblings like generate_dashboard_url and generate_panel_url by specifying the Explore view context. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from generate_loki_explore_url or generate_prometheus_explore_url, which appear to be more specific variants.

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 optional parameters but doesn't explain when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like generate_loki_explore_url or generate_prometheus_explore_url, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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