filoo_list_links

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses pagination ('cursor-paginated'), ordering ('newest first'), and return structure. However, it does not explicitly mention auth requirements or rate limits, though 'authenticated user' implies auth. A 4 is appropriate as the description is transparent enough for a read-only list operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then return format, then use cases. No wasted words; 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 no output schema, the description explains the return structure (items with fields and cursor) and ordering. It also provides use case context. For a simple list tool, this is complete.

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 already describes limit and cursor parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds the ordering 'newest first' and clarifies cursor usage for pagination, adding moderate value beyond the 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 the authenticated user's short links with ordering and pagination. It distinguishes from siblings like filoo_get_link (single link) and filoo_create_link (creation) by focusing on listing and inventory use.

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 explicitly provides use cases: 'Use to inventory existing links before creating a new one (avoid duplicates) or to find a link by destination.' This tells when to use the tool and implicitly when not (e.g., for a single link, use get_link).

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