get_instance_url

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that the operation is 'cheap', requires no auth state, and can return either plain text or JSON. This adds actionable behavioral context that the annotations do not carry.

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 tightly written: the core purpose is the first sentence, followed by a short rationale, then a cleanly formatted args block. Every sentence earns its place and there is no extraneous filler.

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 read-only getter, the description covers the operation's purpose, use case, and parameter semantics sufficiently. An output schema is present, so return values need not be fully spelled out, and the few lingering unknowns (e.g., how an empty instance is resolved) are minor for a tool this simple.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description must explain the parameters. It defines format values ('report' vs 'json') and notes they are optional; instance is only described as 'YouTrack instance (optional)', which is sparse but still supplies a minimal meaning absent from the schema. More detail about instance format (name/ID/URL) would lift this, so 4 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 opens with a specific action and object: 'Return the base URL of the configured YouTrack instance.' This unambiguous verb+resource pairing makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from all sibling tools, none of which return an instance 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?

It states a concrete use case — downstream renderers that need <base>/issue/<ID> links — and notes it avoids a who-am-I call, helping an agent decide when a lightweight probe suffices. However, it names no alternative tools or conditions for not using this tool, so it falls short of an explicit when-not-to-use.

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