get_local_component_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully signals a read operation and distinguishes plugin data from published mappings, but says nothing about permissions, auth requirements, return shape, pagination, or behavior when no links exist.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and resource, followed by a concise data-source clarification. No wasted language.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource and the data source distinction. It lacks explicit usage alternatives and return-value information, but the core selection context is covered.

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?

There is one required parameter, nodeId, with 100% schema description coverage including the editor-selection fallback. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Read) and resource (local DSH component-to-code links), and clarifies that this is plugin data rather than published Code Connect mappings. This distinguishes the data source, though it does not explicitly name the closest sibling such as set_local_component_links or get_component_context.

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?

Implies the tool is for reading local plugin-stored component links rather than published Code Connect mappings. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not mention alternatives like get_component_context or search_design_system.

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