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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the 'one-shot' mechanism ('it can only be viewed/downloaded once'), automatic deletion after first access, and security implications. Annotations provide basic hints (e.g., readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), but the description elaborates on the tool's unique ephemeral behavior, which is crucial for understanding its use case.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence defines the core functionality, followed by key behavioral details, usage context, and structured examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's complexity (ephemeral file upload) and lack of output schema, the description provides complete context: it explains the one-shot mechanism, deletion behavior, security use case, parameter usage with examples, and return value ('The one-shot URL'). This compensates for missing structured output details and aligns well with the annotations.

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 description adds practical meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies the parameter's purpose ('Absolute path to the file') and provides concrete examples (e.g., '/home/user/secret.txt', '/tmp/credentials.txt'). With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3, but the examples and context elevate the score by making the parameter usage more intuitive.

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 specific action ('Upload a file as a one-shot link') and resource ('file'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'rustypaste_upload_file' (standard upload) and 'rustypaste_upload_file_with_expiry' (time-based expiry). The 'one-shot' mechanism is explicitly defined, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Useful for sharing sensitive or temporary files securely') and implies alternatives through sibling tool names (e.g., 'rustypaste_upload_file_with_expiry' for time-based deletion). The 'one-shot' behavior clearly differentiates it from other upload options, providing strong contextual guidance.

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

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the redirect is 'deleted from the server' after first use, which clarifies the 'one-shot' mechanism. Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive operation, but the description provides specific implementation details about deletion behavior.

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?

Perfectly structured with clear sections: purpose statement, behavioral explanation, Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste. The information is front-loaded with the core functionality stated first.

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 single-parameter tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description provides excellent context about behavior and usage. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly describe the return format beyond 'The one-shot redirect URL', but given the tool's simplicity, this is adequate.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents the single 'url' parameter. The description adds minimal value beyond restating that it's 'The target URL to wrap (must be a valid URL)', which is essentially what the schema already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Create a one-shot URL redirect') and resource ('URL'), distinguishing it from siblings like rustypaste_shorten_url (persistent) and rustypaste_oneshot_file (file-based). It precisely defines the one-time expiration behavior.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('Create a one-shot URL redirect — the link expires after a single visit') and distinguishes it from alternatives by describing its unique single-use behavior. The sibling tools list provides clear context for different use cases.

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

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that 'The text is uploaded as a file and a URL is returned,' clarifying the output format. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive, and open-world, but the description enhances understanding of the tool's operation without contradicting annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage, args, returns, examples) and is appropriately sized. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are somewhat redundant given the schema, slightly reducing efficiency. Most sentences earn their place by providing useful context.

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 tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations, and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, and output format, though it lacks details on error handling or rate limits. Without an output schema, the description adequately covers the return value, but could be more comprehensive.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents the parameters. The description includes an 'Args' section that repeats this information without adding significant meaning beyond the schema, such as constraints or usage nuances. This meets the baseline for high 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 specific action ('Upload text content to rustypaste') and the outcome ('get a shareable URL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle files, URLs, or oneshot operations. It explicitly mentions the resource ('text content') and verb ('upload'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 ('Use this to paste code snippets, notes, logs, or any text content'), but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rustypaste_upload_file or rustypaste_oneshot_file. It offers general guidance but lacks specific alternatives or exclusions.

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

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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readOnly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds that it 'creates a short redirect URL,' which provides context about the output behavior, but doesn't disclose rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling beyond what annotations cover.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, args, returns, examples) and front-loaded key information. It's concise but includes an example that reinforces usage, though some parts like 'Args:' and 'Returns:' could be slightly more integrated into the flow.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the purpose and usage with an example. Annotations provide behavioral context, and the schema fully documents parameters, making the description sufficiently complete for this simple tool.

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 100%, with the schema fully documenting the single 'url' parameter. The description adds minimal value by restating that the URL 'must be a valid URL' and providing an example, but doesn't elaborate beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 specific action ('Shorten a long URL') and resource ('using rustypaste'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle files, text, or remote uploads. It explicitly mentions creating a redirect URL, which differentiates it from other URL-related tools like oneshot_url.

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 implies usage when needing a shortened URL, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like rustypaste_oneshot_url. It mentions the tool's purpose but lacks context about sibling tool distinctions or specific scenarios for preference.

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

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

Annotations cover read/write status and idempotency, but the description adds valuable context: it discloses that the tool reads from disk (local file access) and returns a shareable URL. It doesn't contradict annotations, and provides useful behavioral details beyond the structured hints.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value: explaining the action, file support, and return value. The examples are relevant and concise, with no wasted words.

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 single-parameter tool with good annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool does, the parameter usage, and the return value. However, it could better differentiate from sibling tools to enhance contextual understanding.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter fully. The description adds minimal value with an example ('e.g., "/home/user/doc.pdf"'), but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 specific action ('Upload a local file to rustypaste') and resource ('file'), distinguishing it from siblings like text pasting or URL shortening. It specifies reading from disk and uploading to server, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage by mentioning 'local file' and 'any file type,' but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like rustypaste_upload_file_with_expiry or rustypaste_upload_remote. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives are provided.

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

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains that the file is automatically deleted after expiry, which is a key trait not covered by annotations (which only indicate it's not read-only, not open-world, not idempotent, and not destructive). This disclosure of server-side cleanup behavior is crucial for understanding tool effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by key behavioral details, then organized sections for Args, Returns, and Examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description is largely complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and examples. However, it lacks details on error handling or response format beyond the URL, which could be useful for an agent. The annotations help but don't fully compensate for missing output schema.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully documents both parameters (file_path and expiry). The description adds minimal extra semantics (e.g., examples like '10min', '1h'), but doesn't provide significant new meaning beyond the schema's detailed descriptions. This meets the baseline for high 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 specific action ('upload a local file') with the distinctive feature ('with an expiration time'), differentiating it from sibling tools like 'rustypaste_upload_file' (which presumably lacks expiry) and 'rustypaste_oneshot_file' (which may have different behavior). It explicitly mentions the resource ('rustypaste') and outcome ('available at the returned URL').

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 explicit usage guidance by stating when to use this tool (for uploading with expiry) and implicitly when not to use it (e.g., for non-expiring uploads, use 'rustypaste_upload_file'). It distinguishes from siblings by highlighting the unique expiry feature, though it doesn't name alternatives directly, the context is clear.

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

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

Annotations cover read/write status (readOnlyHint=false), world openness (openWorldHint=true), idempotency (idempotentHint=false), and safety (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it explains that 'the rustypaste server fetches the file from the provided URL and hosts it,' clarifying the server-side behavior. However, it does not mention rate limits, auth needs, or file size limits.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly. Additional sentences provide context, usage, and examples without waste. Each section (Args, Returns, Examples) is concise and adds value. No redundant information is present.

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 tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, parameter, and return value. However, it lacks details on potential errors (e.g., invalid URLs, server fetch failures) or behavioral constraints (e.g., file type restrictions, size limits), which would enhance completeness for a mutation tool.

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 100%, with the parameter 'url' fully documented in the schema as 'The remote file URL to upload to rustypaste.' The description adds minimal semantics beyond the schema, only restating the parameter in the Args section and providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action: 'Upload a file from a remote URL to rustypaste.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings by specifying remote URL fetching (vs. local file upload in rustypaste_upload_file or text pasting in rustypaste_paste_text). The purpose is precise and differentiated.

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: 'Useful for mirroring or re-hosting remote resources.' It implies when to use this tool (for remote files) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. The examples reinforce the usage context but lack explicit exclusions.

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