get_email_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as what happens if the email has no HTML body, whether the tool is read-only, authentication requirements, or error handling. The description is too minimal to adequately inform the agent.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus a parameter line with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and maintains a clean structure.

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 an output schema (not shown) and one simple parameter, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks guidance on edge cases like emails without HTML bodies or error scenarios, which slightly reduces completeness.

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 meaning to the single parameter 'item_id' by explicitly stating it is 'The Exchange ItemId of the email to extract links from.' This goes beyond the schema's minimal title and type, which had 0% description coverage.

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 tool extracts all hyperlinks from an email's HTML body. The verb 'extract' and resource 'hyperlinks from email' are specific and distinct from siblings like 'get_email' (retrieves entire email) and 'get_event_links' (extracts links from events).

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 usage for extracting links from an email, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_email, get_event_links). No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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