link

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

Disclosure openly confirms destructive nature ('creates new directory entries pointing to same inode'), aligns with destructiveHint annotation. Adds key behaviors: cannot span filesystems, dry-run, overwrite protection. No contradiction.

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 with key actions and warnings. A bit longer than minimal but every sentence adds value. Could be tighter but remains clear.

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 tool with 5 params, no output schema, and only destructiveHint annotation, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, alternatives, and return format. Fully adequate for agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds behavioral context for dry-run and overwrite protection, linking to parameters, and mentions hard-link constraints. Slightly above baseline but not meticulously describing each parameter.

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 it creates hard links to existing files, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from symbolic links and copying, making purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (create additional names for content without copy) and when not to (not for symbolic links or copying). Names alternatives 'ln --symbolic' and 'cp', and mentions dry-run and overwrite protection for preview.

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