list_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds limited behavioral context by scoping results to 'profile and document links' and indicating completeness with 'all available', but it does not explain output format, ordering, or whether any links may be omitted.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It states the action and the target resource concisely, which is entirely appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity, zero parameters, and presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. Minor gaps exist around link categories and how results are returned, but these are partially addressed by the output schema and the tool's simple nature.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so no parameter semantics are needed. The schema fully documents the empty parameter set, and the description does not need to add anything beyond confirming the tool takes no input.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('profile and document links'), making the tool's purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_link, get_cv_pdf_link, or get_google_scholar_link, but the 'all' vs specific-link distinction is implicit.

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 this is the tool for retrieving a complete set of links rather than a single link, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools such as get_link or get_cv_pdf_link. Usage context is understandable but left to inference.

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