accelo_list_asset_links

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload ('the asset links and the linked assets') and pagination constraints (page 0-indexed, limit max 100). It says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, or filtering behavior, so it is only partially transparent.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a compact definition and an Args block. The 'Returns the asset links' clause mildly restates the opening line, but overall there is little waste.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the return shape and pagination basics, which is the essential minimum. It omits filter key semantics, the fields format, and any auth or scoping context, so an agent can invoke it but cannot use it precisely.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and it does document all four parameters, adding useful specifics like 0-indexed pages and a 100 max limit. However, 'filters: Filter dict' and 'fields: Additional fields' give no key names or format, leaving the two most complex params underspecified.

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 and resource ('List asset links') and goes further with a definitional gloss ('joins between an asset and another object') plus the concrete link targets (issue, job, prospect, contract). This is clear enough to separate it from the asset-link write siblings (create/delete), though it never names them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as accelo_list_assets or accelo_create_asset_link. The domain explanation of what a link is does not tell the agent when this call is the right one.

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