list-todo-linked-resources

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false annotations by specifying the output structure: each item is represented as a linkedResource object with an external ID and a deep link. The TIP further enumerates fields like displayName, webUrl, applicationName, and externalId. This gives the agent a clear expectation of the response without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the TIP adds clarity with plain-language examples. It is not verbose, though the TIP partially repeats information already implied by the formal sentence. Overall, it is efficient and well-structured for an agent to parse.

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 simplicity (listing linked resources) and the rich schema covering all query parameters, the description provides sufficient context: it explains that results are linkedResource objects with certain fields, and the read-only nature is annotated. It does not detail every possible query option, but those are in the schema. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the field list in the TIP, making it complete enough for correct usage.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage for all 13 parameters, including detailed guidance on $top, $filter, pagination, and required path segments. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics; it does not elaborate on any parameter or usage pattern beyond what the schema provides. Thus, a baseline 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 the tool's purpose: 'Get information of one or more items in a partner application, based on which a specified task was created.' It exposes the resource type (linkedResource) and the context (To Do task). The additional TIP reinforces that it lists resources linked to a task, making its role distinct from sibling tools like create-todo-linked-resource and delete-todo-linked-resource without explicitly naming them.

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 gives a clear context: it retrieves linked resources for a specified task, which implicitly indicates this is the tool to use when you need to list such resources. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or mention alternatives (e.g., create/delete). Given the obvious read-only nature and naming, it is sufficient, but not as explicit as ideal.

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