laserfiche_link_definition_list

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

With no annotations, the description fully describes the behavior: returns OData listing with value, each item has linkTypeId, sourceLabel, targetLabel, linkTypeDescription; mentions default link types and error format. It discloses pagination behavior and summary_only mode, adding useful context beyond a simple list.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage context, parameter docs, return format, and error handling. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. It is efficiently written.

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 no annotations and an output schema (not fully detailed), the description provides sufficient context about the operation: list, pagination, return structure, and error handling. It could mention that it's read-only, but that is implied.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides parameter info. The description adds value by explaining the effect of summary_only (avoids large payload) and clarifies defaults and pagination offset. This goes beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 lists entry-link type definitions with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('entry-link type definitions'). It distinguishes from sibling list tools (e.g., field, tag, template definitions) by focusing on link types.

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 says 'Use before calling set_links — you need a linkTypeId from this listing to construct a valid link.' This provides clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the context and sibling names make the purpose distinct.

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