list_context_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. 'List' clearly indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose return format, pagination, or behavior when both IDs are provided. It is minimally transparent but not misleading.

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 a single, clear sentence with no superfluous words. It front-loads the action ('List') and the object ('all reference links and notes'), making it immediately understandable.

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 read-only list tool with two well-documented parameters, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not explicitly mention that exactly one of folder_id or project_id must be provided, though the schema covers this. No output schema exists, but the return value is adequately implied by 'list'.

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%, with each parameter already fully described ('Collection (folder) ID' and 'Project or prototype ID'). The description restates the target types but adds no new parameter-level semantics, warranting the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 identifies the action ('List') and the resource ('reference links and notes') with scope ('collection or project/prototype'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_context_link and remove_context_link, which perform different operations.

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 implies usage when you need to view context links for a collection or project, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention exclusions. The schema provides the either/or requirement for IDs, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.

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