goclaw_agent_links_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists delegation links, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what format the output takes (e.g., list of agent IDs or detailed objects). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action ('List delegation links') and includes clarifying information ('which agents it can delegate to') that adds value. There is zero waste or redundancy.

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 low complexity (one required parameter) and high schema coverage (100%), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address behavioral aspects like authentication needs, output format, or error handling. For a read operation, this is a moderate gap, but the simplicity of the tool keeps it from being severely incomplete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'agent_id' documented as 'Agent ID'. The description adds no additional semantic context about this parameter (e.g., where to find the agent ID, format requirements, or validation rules). Since the schema already fully describes the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 states the action ('List delegation links') and the target resource ('for an agent'), with additional clarification about what delegation links represent ('which agents it can delegate to'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'goclaw_agent_links_remove' and 'goclaw_agent_links_set' by focusing on listing rather than modifying. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'goclaw_agent_list' or other list tools, which slightly reduces specificity.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing agent ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'goclaw_agent_list' (which might list agents themselves) or 'goclaw_agent_get' (which might retrieve agent details). Usage is implied from the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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