sym_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool provides links (not files), only works on finished drafts, and that watermarked:true returns the official export. It does not mention error cases or link expiration, but the core behavioral trait of returning links vs downloading is clearly conveyed.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the usage context is condensed into a single final clause. Every sentence contributes distinct 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?

For a two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers key aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, and usage timing. It omits return format details and behavior for invalid draftIds, but overall an agent can correctly select and invoke this tool for its intended niche.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the watermarked parameter's effect (official export vs original file) and implies draftId refers to a draft from sym_history. Both parameters are addressed beyond their bare type definitions, though draftId could use a bit more context.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Download links of a finished draft', and clarifies the two modes (original no watermark vs watermarked official export). It also distinguishes this tool from the extension's automatic downloads, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'use this for older drafts from sym_history'. It also contrasts with the extension's self-downloading behavior for jobs, implicitly telling the agent when not to use this tool. This is clear guidance with no reliance on inference.

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