Get resource links

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

The description adds behavior not present in structured data: the result is a bounded collection of 1 to 10 resource_link blocks pointing at dynamic resources. However, with no annotations, it carries the full burden, and it does not explain boundary handling for invalid count values, error behavior, or what 'dynamic resources' implies for result stability.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase earns its place: the action, resource type, and output bound are all stated.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimal but workable: an agent knows the output kind and rough count range. It is incomplete because there is no output schema, no definition of what a resource_link block contains, and no error or boundary behavior.

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 schema only provides a default for count with no property description, so the description must compensate. It partially does by tying the output to a 1-10 range and resource_link blocks, from which the role of the single count parameter can be inferred, but it never explicitly defines valid count values or behavior for extreme inputs.

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 action ('Return'), the resource type ('resource_link blocks'), and an output bound ('between 1 and 10'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_resource_reference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The description offers no conditions, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, so an agent receives no help with tool selection.

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