list_link_contributions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this returns only standalone/link-only contributions, but it omits any detail on return format, ordering, or pagination. For a simple read-only list tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 a single, concise sentence that fully states the tool's purpose without any filler. It front-loads the essential 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is nearly complete for understanding its purpose. The only slight gap is not elaborating what a 'standalone (link-only) contribution' specifically entails, but the sibling context clarifies this.

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 tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the baseline for 0 params, the score is 4; the description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none to describe.

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 listing 'standalone (link-only) contributions,' with a specific verb and resource. The qualifier 'standalone (link-only)' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_contributions, list_group_contributions, and list_lightbox_contributions.

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 when to use this tool (when you need link-only contributions) but does not explicitly contrast it with list_contributions or other contribution list variants. No exclusions or alternatives are stated, so guidance is merely implied.

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