Mint a read-only share link

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does so well: it discloses read-only behavior, single-scene scope, default TTL, and the critical limitation that share tokens cannot reach OS feature routes. It does not mention auth requirements or revcation, but the important behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The primary purpose and scope are front-loaded, the endpoint and default TTL are compactly included, and the critical viewer-only constraint is stated emphatically. Every clause earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the result (token + embed URL), the default expiration, and the access boundary. It could be stronger by naming exact response fields or auth prerequisites, but the core calling context is sufficient.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by revealing the default TTL (30 days) and implying that scan_id identifies the scene to share. However, it does not explain ttl_seconds unit or scan_id format, leaving partial but not complete param semantics.

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 ('Mint'), the resource ('read-only, single-scene share token + embed URL'), and the endpoint (POST /share). It sharply differentiates this tool from siblings like scene_share_access by emphasizing the read-only, viewer-only nature.

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 for when this tool is appropriate: creating a read-only, single-scene share link with a default TTL. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is evident and the viewer-only restriction prevents misuse.

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