List Activity Links

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns a paginated JSON array with pagination metadata, and specifies required parameters. It also provides the API endpoint and version. This is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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, using three sentences. It front-loads the core action, then adds pagination details, required params, and API context. Every sentence contributes 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 the tool has 10 parameters, no output schema, and robust annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, pagination, required params, and API endpoint. It explains the return type sufficiently for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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%, with each parameter having a clear description. The description only reinforces the purpose of page and per_page for pagination and lists required parameters. It does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Based on baseline rules, score is 3.

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 'List all activity links in a schedule' and specifies the return type as a paginated JSON array. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_activities (which lists activities) and get_activity_link_by_id (single resource). The verb 'list' and resource 'activity links' are specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit use cases: 'enumerate Scheduling records... to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It mentions pagination and required parameters. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives (e.g., get_activity_link_by_id for a single record), the guidance is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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