List document-item links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds nothing behavioral of its own – no mention of pagination behavior, result volume, or what a 'link' record contains – so it contributes little beyond the structured fields.

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?

A single short sentence with zero filler and the resource stated up front. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate concision.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only listing with a full schema, rich annotations and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. Still, it omits what the linked 'items' can be and whether any filtering is possible, leaving a modest gap for an agent.

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% with three optional, well-documented parameters (range, fields, format), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no extra meaning about these parameters, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('List links between documents and other items'), which is more precise than the bare name. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like glpi_list_documents, glpi_get_document_item or glpi_create_document_item, and 'other items' stays vague about which item types are linkable.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided. An agent cannot tell from this text whether it should call this tool or glpi_list_documents / glpi_get_document_item for a given need.

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