Hotlinks (sources and instances)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/idempotent/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavior beyond that: it enumerates the returned fields (nodeGuid, sourceStatus values, story range, last update, nested children, instances with position in metres and angle in degrees), which is the load-bearing content for a tool with no output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and returning to the sibling cross-reference at the end. The field enumeration is dense but earns its place given the absence of an output schema; no filler.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so thoroughly, and read-only annotations cover safety. The main gap is the lack of when-to-use guidance relative to sibling hotlink tools, which is minor for a straightforward list operation.

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 all three parameters (types, includeInstances, includeElementCounts) are already documented in the schema. The description adds only indirect meaning, hinting at instance/children output but not explaining the filters. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Starts with a specific verb and resource — 'Lists hotlink nodes' — and immediately scopes it to the two node kinds (hotlinked modules .pln/.pla/.mod and XRefs DWG/DXF) returned as a tree. An agent can distinguish it from place_hotlink, update_hotlinks and delete_hotlinks, which are all explicitly named.

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?

It ends with a routing hint: 'Use nodeGuid with place_hotlink {node}, update_hotlinks and delete_hotlinks', which tells the agent how this tool's output feeds the siblings. However it never states when to call this tool itself versus alternatives, or any preconditions (e.g. must a project be open, must hotlinks exist). Usage is implied rather than stated.

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