links_get_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as return format, pagination, or what 'links' refers to. Given the annotations provide the safety profile, the description contributes minimal value.

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 extremely short, but it is not meaningfully concise—it is a tautology. It does not front-load any actionable detail; it simply restates the tool name. The single sentence fails to earn its place.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should clarify what is returned, but it does not. It lacks any context about the result set, filtering, or how the locationId affects the response. The presence of annotations covers safety but not functional completeness.

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 single parameter locationId is fully documented in the schema with a default note. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics, so it remains at baseline.

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 'Get Links' merely restates the tool name. It does not specify what kind of links, what is returned, or how it differs from sibling tools like links_get_link_by_id or links_search_trigger_links. The purpose is vague and lacks a clear resource scope.

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 information is provided about when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of alternative tools, filters, or scenarios. An agent has no guidance to select this over the many other link-related tools.

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