bobai_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context by framing this as a link-directory return rather than raw data and enumerating the link set, though it says nothing about auth, freshness, or format beyond 'live burn audit log'.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads the resource and its contents, the second handles routing. No filler and nothing redundant with structured fields.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema, the enumerated link list effectively describes the return value, and the when-to-use sentence covers the routing decision. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a self-contained, argument-free retrieval.

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 resource (official $BOBAI links) and enumerates exactly what is returned (website, BscScan verified source, X, Telegram, DexScreener, GeckoTerminal, CoinGecko, live burn audit log, llms.txt). It also distinguishes itself from the many bobai_* data siblings by noting agents should get data from other 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when a person needs a link to open') and when not to ('an agent gets the data itself from the other tools'). This directly routes between this tool and the numerous data-oriented siblings without ambiguity.

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