effect-doc-links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It conveys that it is a read-only operation returning links, but does not disclose details like return format, potential side effects, or limitations. The description adds some context about client-side selective loading, but lacks depth.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior of returning links, which is sufficient for a simple query tool with one parameter. However, it does not detail the return structure or explicitly address the sibling tool, leaving minor gaps in 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 input schema fully describes the 'libraries' parameter with examples, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so it remains at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 returns resource links for specified libraries, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'effect-documentation', which would merit a 5.

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 phrase 'so the client can load only what's needed' implies a use case for selective loading, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of the sibling. No alternatives 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.