list_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that the tool returns link names and URLs, which gives some transparency about output, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, require any permissions, or have side effects. It also omits details about pagination or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation support, this is insufficient.

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 brief and to the point, but it includes a redundant 'Args' line that merely echoes the schema. The critical information about the resource type and return content is present, and the structure is reasonably front-loaded with the primary purpose. However, the redundancy reduces efficiency slightly; it could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

While an output schema exists (so return structure isn't needed in the description), the definition still lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over its many sibling listing tools. It also does not mention any prerequisites or limitations. For a simple list operation, the purpose is clear, but the lack of differentiation and operational context makes it incomplete for reliable selection.

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 0%, placing the entire burden on the description. The description only repeats the parameter name and type ('school_id: School ID') without adding any semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how the ID is used, what format it should be in, or any constraints. This adds no value over the input schema.

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 states the tool lists quick-access links for a school, with specific examples (calendars, menus, forms). It identifies the resource type distinctly from siblings like list_files or list_photos, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. The verb 'list' plus resource and scope makes the purpose unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other listing tools such as list_files or get_feeds. It does not state exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer when quick-access links are relevant without any comparison to sibling functions. The description is purely declarative with no usage context.

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