list_team_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but the description says nothing about pagination, default page size, sort defaults, maximum results, or required team membership/permissions — all material for a 6-parameter paginated listing tool.

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 short sentence with no filler and the scope qualifier placed correctly. The terseness is under-specification rather than efficiency, since nothing about parameters or result behavior is stated.

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?

Six parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description covers only the resource name. An agent cannot determine pagination conventions, sort behavior, search semantics, or return shape from this definition.

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 0%, so the description needed to compensate and does not: it never mentions teamId, page, pageSize, search, orderBy, or sortDescending. The only hint is that a team is involved, leaving the meaning and accepted values of orderBy and search entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List tracked links') plus a scope qualifier ('belonging to a team'), which distinguishes it from the account-wide list_links sibling. It does not explicitly name that sibling or other team-scoped listers, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'belonging to a team' — an agent can infer this is the team-scoped variant, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over list_links or list_team_websites/list_team_boards. No prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions are mentioned.

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