url_for

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

Despite no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: it is read-only, performs pure ID-to-URL construction without opening or writing, and returns a URL string. This transparency exceeds the burden for an unannotated tool.

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 concise with three sentences, front-loading the key trait ('Read-only') and main action. There is no irrelevant information, and every sentence contributes meaning.

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 simple tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains the return value (URL as a string) and the source of input IDs, leaving no obvious gaps.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('Id of the project...' and 'Id of the item...'). The description adds minimal value beyond referencing sources ('from find/list_projects'), so a 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 tool's purpose: building a paste-ready deep link to an item in its native app. It uses specific verbs ('Build', 'hand the human a clickable reference') and distinguishes from sibling tools that perform mutations (create_task, update_task) by emphasizing read-only behavior and URL construction.

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 to use the tool ('when you want to give a human a clickable reference') and what it does not do ('does not open anything or write'). While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to understand appropriate usage.

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