generate_marble_link

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the input constraint 'array of 1-3 projects' and output format 'markdown-formatted links', but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this is a read-only operation, if it makes external API calls, what happens with invalid inputs, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is perfectly concise at two sentences with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, specifies input constraints, and describes the output format and use case efficiently. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct, valuable information.

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 with rich nested structure) and 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and output format but lacks behavioral context about how the tool operates, what the generated links look like, or potential error conditions. The absence of an output schema means the description should ideally explain the return format more thoroughly.

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%, providing comprehensive documentation of the single parameter 'projects' and its nested object structure. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only reiterating the array size constraint '1-3 projects' without explaining why this range exists or how the projects parameter relates to the generated links. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 tool's purpose: 'generate Marble platform links for learning projects' and specifies the output format 'markdown-formatted links'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on link generation rather than slide creation or project suggestion. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with generate_slides_link beyond the different resource types.

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 context by stating the links are 'for learning projects' and 'can be inserted into project descriptions', suggesting integration into documentation workflows. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools generate_slides_link or suggest_learning_projects, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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