List Links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds valuable behavioral context: pagination via page/per_page, inclusion of pagination metadata in the response, and the deprecation status. This sufficiently extends 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 and well-structured. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds deprecation warning, usage guidance, return type, pagination control, required parameters, and API location. Every sentence serves a purpose with no 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 no output schema, the description adequately describes the return type as a paginated JSON array with metadata. It covers pagination control and required parameter. It could mention error handling or authentication scope, but for a simple list tool, it is largely 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description mentions 'use page and per_page to control pagination' and states that project_id is required, but this adds little new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is 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 clearly states it returns a list of Project Home Links for a given project. While it uses a specific verb and resource, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'show_link' or 'bulk_update_links' beyond the inherent listing context.

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 use cases: 'when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It also explicitly deprecates the endpoint and points to the V2 alternative, which serves as guidance to prefer the newer version. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives like 'show_link'.

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