lbm_list_links

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

Annotations indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: return format (compact CSV vs. full JSON), default limit, and pagination (offset). 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 concise, uses clear headings (WHEN TO USE, REQUIRES, RETURNS), and front-loads the most important information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers return format, filtering capabilities, pagination, and prerequisites. It could mention sorting or more detail about the CSV columns, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

All 7 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds value by emphasizing the default limit (20), the include_all_fields toggle, and a usage hint about passing a higher limit only on user request.

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's purpose: 'To see which URLs and domains LLMs cited in their responses'. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_results or get_transcript.

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 provides clear usage context, starting with 'WHEN TO USE' and specifying a prerequisite ('REQUIRES: project_id from lbm_list_projects'). It does not explicitly say when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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