follow_api_link

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the constraint that the link must come from a previous API response, which is a meaningful behavioral trait beyond the schema (though the parameter description also mentions '_links section'). No contradictions detected.

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 sentence with exactly nine words, fully front-loaded, and contains no filler or redundant content. Every word 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?

The tool has one parameter, clear annotations, and an output schema, so the description only needs to convey the core purpose and any key constraints. It does this adequately. A minor gap is the lack of explicit note about HATEOAS being enabled, but this is implied by the mention of links from previous responses.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage with a description ('The link URL to follow (from _links section)'). The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Follow') and a specific resource ('HATEOAS link') and clearly indicates the source ('from a previous API response'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable_hateoas or disable_hateoas, which manage HATEOAS behavior.

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 context: it should be used when a client needs to navigate a HATEOAS link returned in a prior API response. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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