get_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a capped listing (250 items), supports paging via 'offset', and that omitting 'linkIds' returns a large listing. It also conveys read-only intent through 'Inspect' and 'static properties'. It does not describe the response format in detail, but the listed property types give a reasonable picture. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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 concise sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the core purpose and enumerates the properties; the second provides the crucial usage tip about 'linkIds' and the cap. All information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 simplicity (read-only listing with three params), the description is largely complete. It covers the purpose, property types, parameter usage, and paging behavior. The absence of an output schema is partially compensated by listing the specific properties per link type. The only minor gap is lack of explicit mention of the response container format, but this is not critical for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the 250-item cap, the paging behavior with 'offset', and how 'linkIds' affects response size. This extra usage context helps the agent choose parameter values correctly, thus exceeding the baseline.

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 ('Inspect') and a clear resource ('static properties of network links'), then enumerates the exact properties for each link type (pipes, pumps, valves). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_nodes (node properties) and get_link_results (simulation results), so an agent can immediately tell what this tool is for.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to pass 'linkIds' (to keep the response small) versus when to omit (to get a capped listing). It also implies the tool is for static data, which separates it from get_link_results (likely dynamic). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use them, so it falls just short of a 5.

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