List Outcome Group Links

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

The description is minimal and does not contradict the readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true annotations. It adds little beyond the annotations—just 'List all outcome links' which aligns with read-only, but offers no extra detail on pagination, result limits, or side effects. With annotations present, the bar is lower, and it's not misleading, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 concise sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately conveys the action and scope, fully front-loaded. There is zero fluff.

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?

Without an output schema, the description should hint at the return shape, but it only says 'outcome links' without specifying format or pagination. The parameters explain style options, but the description itself is sparse. It is adequate for a simple read-only list but could benefit from mentioning common use cases or return format.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meanings beyond what the schema provides. It names 'outcome links' but does not elaborate on the style parameters or context options, so it does not go beyond the structured data.

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 ('List all outcome links') and the context ('account or course'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_outcome_groups or get_outcome_alignments by focusing on 'links' between outcomes and groups.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer this over get_outcome_alignments or list_outcome_group_outcomes, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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