List Links

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

With readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the read-only nature is already disclosed. The description adds value by mentioning pagination and the return format ('array of link objects with configuration, URLs, and metadata'), but it does not clarify default pagination behavior, ordering, or potential error conditions. This is moderate additional context beyond 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 two sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and then succinctly states the return type. Every word earns 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?

Given the low complexity of a list operation, the description adequately covers the return format and pagination. It lacks an output schema, so explaining that it returns an array of link objects is beneficial. Minor gaps include missing details about default pagination and whether 'all' means no built-in filtering, but overall it is sufficiently complete for this tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only mentions 'optional pagination' without adding details beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions for limit and offset. The schema fully documents each parameter, so the description contributes little extra semantic value.

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 function: 'List all links in a ULink project with optional pagination.' It specifies a distinct verb ('list'), resource ('links'), and scope ('in a ULink project'), differentiating it from sibling tools like get_link (single link) and list_projects (projects).

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 for retrieving a collection of links, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_link or provide exclusions. There is no mention of 'when not to use' or alternative tool names, so guidance is only implied.

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