get_page_url

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: the tool generates a URL without browser interaction and has a default project. However, it does not cover potential errors (e.g., if the page doesn't exist), rate limits, authentication needs, or the exact URL format, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, behavior, and default parameter. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the action and context, and the second clarifies the default project and non-browser behavior, with no redundant or wasted 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 (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the core functionality and default behavior adequately, but lacks details on error handling, return format (beyond 'direct URL'), and differentiation from siblings. Without annotations or output schema, more context would improve completeness for safe agent use.

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%, with clear descriptions for both parameters in the input schema. The description adds marginal value by reiterating the default project behavior for 'projectName,' but does not provide additional semantic context beyond what the schema already documents, such as examples or constraints on the 'title' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 URL for a page in Scrapbox project on cosense (scrapbox).' It specifies the verb ('Generate URL'), resource ('a page'), and platform context ('Scrapbox project on cosense'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_page' (which likely retrieves page content rather than just the URL), leaving room for improvement.

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 provides some usage context by mentioning the default project ('my-cosense-project') and that it 'Returns the direct URL... without opening it in browser,' which implies a non-interactive use case. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_page' or 'list_pages,' and does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, relying on implied understanding.

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