item_get_linked_items

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

With readOnlyHint already indicating a safe read operation, the description adds the example of audio for video clip, but does not disclose behavior like handling of multiple linked items, absence of links, or track-specific semantics beyond the schema.

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?

A single sentence that efficiently conveys the core function and includes a clarifying example. No filler or redundant information.

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?

For a simple read tool with a full schema, an output schema, and a clear example, the description is nearly complete. It could be more explicit about the full scope of 'linked' (e.g., multi-track links), but the provided context is likely sufficient for correct use.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description's example loosely hints at track_type usage but adds no substantial meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 ('Return') and resource ('items linked to this timeline item'), with a concrete example ('audio for a video clip') that clarifies the purpose and distinguishes it from sibling item_* tools.

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 use when needing linked items, but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or comparison to alternative tools. The example gives context but not decision criteria.

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