get_task_instance_extra_links

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. 'Gets' implies a read-only call, but nothing is said about permissions needed, behavior when no extra links exist, or error cases; it adds essentially no behavioral context beyond the verb.

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?

Front-loaded role sentence followed by a compact args block; every line maps to a required parameter. The repeated 'Exact ... identifier' phrasing is slightly redundant but not wasteful.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and all three required params are covered. However, for a tool whose concept ('extra links') is non-obvious, the description leaves the agent guessing what content comes back and when it would be empty.

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 0%, yet the description gives each of the three identifiers meaning, and notably warns that dag_id must be the exact ID returned by list_dags rather than its display name — a genuine disambiguation. It stops short of format examples or constraining dag_run_id/task_id beyond 'exact'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gets extra links for a task instance'), which cleanly separates it from neighbors like get_task_instance_logs and get_task_instance_details. It does not explain what an 'extra link' actually is (operator-provided external links), which is the one piece an unfamiliar agent would need.

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 statement of when to call this versus get_task_instance_details, get_task_instance_logs, or list_xcom_entries, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only guidance is parameter-level identifier notes.

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