Önizleme URL'si al

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds behavioral details: links are valid for 1 hour, and both storefront and local development URLs are provided. It also clarifies that publishing is separate, which adds context beyond 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and key constraints (1-hour validity, draft state, two URL types). 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?

With no output schema, the description explains that preview links are returned for two environments)Skip but doesn't detail the response structure. It also mentions the 1-hour expiry and that publishing is done from the panel, which helps context. Missing pagination or error behavior is acceptable given annotations and simplicity.

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% with clear descriptions for page and locale params. The tool description does not add significant param-level detail beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. It does add the draft context, but that's not param-specific.

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 generates preview URLs for draft pages, specifying the 1-hour validity and the two environments (storefront and local development). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page which retrieves page data, and the scope (drafts only) is explicit.

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 when to use this tool (for drafts before publishing) and notes that publishing is done from the panel. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the context is clear enough. However, it lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons to siblings.

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