wirk_show

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits beyond the schema: read-only, link-based access for anyone, and expiry. However, it omits auth/permission requirements, revocation behavior, and any rate/visibility caveats. The ambiguous 'Not live yet' clause further weakens confidence.

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 definition is short and the actionable sentence comes second. The opening 'Not live yet on api.wirk.life: answers views_unavailable' is cryptic and consumes the front-loaded position without conveying a clear condition. Otherwise reasonably efficient.

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 17% schema coverage, the description does not do enough. It leaves revoke, format, title, and workspace_id unexplained and gives no return-value detail beyond 'its link', while the 'not live' statement leaves the agent unsure whether the tool functions at all.

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 only 17% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It gestures at 'preset status' and 'a view config' (roughly preset/blocks) but gives no meaning for title, format, revoke, or workspace_id. A low-coverage schema is left under-explained.

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 core sentence gives a specific verb and resource: 'Make a live, read-only page a person can open... returns its link.' That is clear enough to distinguish from sibling read/write tools. The leading clause 'Not live yet on api.wirk.life: answers views_unavailable' muddies the message and makes the tool's availability ambiguous rather than clarifying its purpose.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no comparison against siblings (wirk_status, wirk_query, wirk_write, wirk_review). The mention of 'the preset status or a view config' is parameter-level input detail, not usage guidance. The agent gets no signal about when to pick this over an alternative.

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