get_clinks

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions filtering by group, time range, and limit, but fails to disclose that mark_read can mutate read status, a significant side effect. It also omits details about return format or ordering, leaving the agent without full behavioral awareness.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence provides a useful alternative pointer. No 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?

With 5 parameters (including a mutating flag) and no output schema, the description is relatively brief. It covers filters but omits side effects, return structure, and edge-case behavior (e.g., mark_read with unread_only). More detail would improve completeness.

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?

Input schema covers all 5 parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description summarizes group, time range, and limit filters but adds no new syntax or format details. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses the verb 'Get' with the resource 'clinks from Clink groups', clearly indicating a retrieval operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like send_clink, claim_clink, and check_inbox by highlighting filtering capabilities and pointing to check_inbox as an alternative for quick unread checks.

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 explicitly directs users to check_inbox for quick unread checks, implying get_clinks is for more detailed, filtered retrieval. It does not enumerate other alternatives but provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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