get_manga_external_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates this is a read operation ('Return'), which is helpful, but doesn't mention potential constraints like rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens with invalid manga IDs. The description adds value by specifying what types of links are included, but lacks operational details an agent would need.

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 exceptionally concise and well-structured in a single sentence. Every element earns its place: the core action ('Return only external links'), the target resource ('for a manga'), and the scope clarification ('including MangaDex itself and any mapped sites'). There's zero redundancy or wasted verbiage.

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 simple nature (single parameter, read-only operation), the presence of an output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It clearly states what the tool returns and includes helpful scope information. The main gap is lack of behavioral details that would be important for an agent (like error handling), but the output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single mangaId parameter. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but provides no additional semantic context about parameter usage or constraints.

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's purpose: 'Return only external links for a manga' specifies both the action (return) and resource (external links for manga). It distinguishes from siblings like get_manga_details by focusing specifically on external links, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The mention of 'MangaDex itself and any mapped sites' provides helpful scope clarification.

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 by specifying 'only external links' and mentioning what's included, suggesting this tool is for retrieving link references rather than full manga data. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus get_manga_details (which might also contain links) or provide clear exclusion criteria. The guidance is present but not comprehensive.

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