get_linkedin_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or what is actually returned. This is minimal behavioral transparency for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to meaning, and it is appropriately sized for such a simple tool.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema covers its only parameter, so the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the agent would benefit from knowing whether it returns a list of profiles, profile URLs, or other details, and whether any authorization scope is needed.

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 100% for the single parameter 'limit', so the schema already documents the parameter adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('the user's LinkedIn connections'), making the tool's primary function obvious. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_linkedin_profile or search_linkedin_people, but the resource name is distinct enough to avoid major confusion.

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 implies usage through the verb and resource: call this to retrieve the user's LinkedIn connections. However, it gives no explicit when/when-not guidance and does not mention alternatives such as search_linkedin_people for finding non-connection people.

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