get_linkedin_config

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

The description accurately reflects a non-destructive read operation. No annotations are provided, but the description itself is transparent about the data returned (config, status, stats, logs), with no contradictions.

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 a single, concise sentence that effectively communicates the purpose and scope. Every word is necessary.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture of what the tool does and returns. No additional context is needed 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?

There are no parameters, so the schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning by listing the categories of data returned, which is sufficient without param details.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('LinkedIn automation configuration'), and specifies the scope: configuration, connection status, stats, and recent logs. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_linkedin_config.

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 makes it obvious this is a read-only retrieval tool. While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it, the sibling tool update_linkedin_config provides the obvious alternative for write operations.

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