get_lab_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It implies a read operation (Get) and mentions the input parameter but does not disclose behavior like whether the lab must already be open, if errors occur for invalid paths, or if the output is static or state-dependent. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args section is well-structured for parameter documentation. It could be slightly more concise by removing the 'Args:' header if redundant, but it serves clarity.

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 has one simple parameter and an output schema present (which explains return values), the description is largely complete. It could benefit from noting any lab state requirements or whether the tool is safe to use on closed labs, but the minimalism is acceptable for this low-complexity tool.

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?

The description adds the exact format for the lab_path parameter ('Full path to the .unl lab file'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description provides the only semantic guidance. The path format guidance is valuable, though no detailed restrictions (e.g., relative vs absolute) are given.

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 identifies the tool as retrieving ethernet/serial endpoints available in a lab, with a specific use case noted (useful before wiring nodes). This verb+resource combination is distinct from sibling tools like 'get_lab_topology' or 'get_node_interfaces'.

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 mentions when it is useful (before wiring nodes), which gives context for usage. However, it does not mention when not to use it or provide alternatives from the sibling list, though the sibling list is available for the agent to compare.

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