List Trigger Links

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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the location scoping constraint, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as what 'all' means in light of the openWorldHint, whether pagination is involved, or what happens when locationId is omitted.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no wasted words. It is highly concise and well-structured for quick parsing.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema) and rich annotations, the description is adequate but lacks some contextual depth. It does not clarify the return format, the meaning of 'all' in the presence of openWorldHint, or the implications of omitting the optional locationId.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate. It maps locationId to 'for a location', providing a minimal semantic link. However, the parameter name itself already conveys the meaning, so the description adds little beyond what the schema property name suggests.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get all') with a clear resource ('trigger links') and context ('for a location'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools such as ghl_list_pipelines or ghl_list_surveys, which target different resource types.

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 other list tools, nor any prerequisites or contextual clues beyond the location scope. It fails to mention alternatives or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the resource name.

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