get_upload_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action (get a presigned URL) and its role in the workflow, but it doesn't explain the nature of the URL (e.g., temporary, one-time), potential authentication requirements, or what happens after upload. It also doesn't describe the expected response format. While the core purpose is clear, the absence of these details leaves the agent without full behavioral context. A score of 3 reflects that the description is adequate but lacks rich transparency.

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 compact, consisting of two sentences with no extraneous content. The primary action is front-loaded ('Get a presigned URL'), followed immediately by the usage condition. Every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no repetition of schema or annotation details. This exemplifies excellent conciseness and logical structure.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and its role in the inference workflow. It could elaborate on the return value (the URL) or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a straightforward call. Given the tool's simplicity and the guidance it provides, it is nearly complete; a 4 is justified.

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 schema documents both parameters ('service' and 'input_field') with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides; it mentions examples like 'audio, image' but doesn't clarify how those map to the parameters. Following the guideline that high schema coverage yields a baseline of 3, the description adds no extra value, so a 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 a specific action ('Get a presigned URL') and the purpose ('to upload a file for inference'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'infer' (which runs inference) and 'list_services'. The phrase 'for inference' ties it to the workflow, making the tool's role unambiguous. It avoids tautology and is specific about the resource (a presigned 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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need to upload a local file... before running inference.' This provides a clear condition for when to invoke the tool. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context of siblings (infer, list_services) makes the appropriate use apparent. It's slightly shy of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or directly contrast with siblings, but it offers sufficient guidance.

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