Roo — list shortlinks

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well by disclosing cursor-based pagination, ordering (most-recent first), and the compact nature of the returned items. It doesn't explicitly state read-only semantics or error behaviors, but for a simple list operation the disclosed behavior is already beyond the typical baseline.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It leads with the main action and immediately includes the key pagination and compactness qualifiers, then points to the detail tool. Every clause earns its place.

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 simple paginated list with two optional params, no required args, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the scope, the pagination behavior, the ordering, the item compactness, and the follow-up tool for full detail. The cursor param is fully explained in the schema, so nothing critical is missing.

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%, and both parameters already have clear descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but it does support the cursor parameter by mentioning pagination and the compact item format. Per the baseline for full schema coverage, a 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('shortlinks on the account'), and key scoping details (cursor-paginated, most-recent first). It also distinguishes itself from roo_get_shortlink by noting it returns compact items, making it clear that this is the listing tool rather than the detail tool.

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 explicitly names the alternative for full detail: 'call roo_get_shortlink for full detail on one.' This tells the agent when to use a sibling instead, which is strong guidance. The pagination hint also implies the usage pattern of iterating pages, which is sufficient for this simple list tool.

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