Open in Draftlytic

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the behavior: builds a link, compresses spec or passes plain-text idea, and returns a URL. It does not contradict any annotations. Additional details like the external flow (guided questions, PRD export) add context, but some aspects like rate limits or authentication are not mentioned.

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 relatively long but well-structured, front-loading the main purpose. Each sentence adds information about functionality or constraints. Minor redundancy ('free account, no card' could be streamlined) but overall efficient.

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 output schema, the description explicitly states what the tool returns (a URL to show as a clickable link) and explains the external flow. It covers both parameters and provides enough context for an agent to understand the purpose and outcome. Highly complete for a tool with simple parameters.

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%, so parameters are described. The description adds value by explaining that spec takes precedence over idea and that spec gets compressed into a starting brief. This clarifies the interaction between the two parameters beyond the schema definitions.

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 that the tool builds a link to open an idea in the Draftlytic app. It specifies the verb 'build a link' and the resource 'Draftlytic app', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like render_prd or validate_spec that operate within the current environment.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: to hand off to the Draftlytic app. It mentions that it only builds a URL and nothing is sent, which sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives beyond implicit differentiation from siblings.

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