managebac_list_links

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits extensively. It mentions 'authenticated' implying an auth requirement, but fails to explain rate limits, error behavior, or the output format. The tool's read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core action and a usage hint. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description is adequate for a simple listing tool, but it lacks details about the return format (e.g., whether it returns objects with text/URL). The absence of an output schema places a greater burden on the description to explain results.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no new meaning beyond what the schema provides, establishing a baseline score of 3.

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 tool lists links visible on an authenticated ManageBac page, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle deadlines, grades, and sessions. The added hint about finding class/task paths reinforces its specific use case.

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 provides contextual guidance by noting it is 'useful for finding exact class/task paths,' which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or name alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent based on sibling tool names.

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