image_getLinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state that this is a read-only query, does not describe the status values returned, and does not say whether the scan covers the whole document or only a page/selection.

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?

A single efficient sentence with no filler and the purpose front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing detail elsewhere.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what a 'link status' result contains, but it does not. For a status-check tool whose entire value is the returned state, this leaves the agent unable to interpret results.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single optional document_id is fully documented (name or 0-based index, defaults to front document). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb+resource is clear ('get link status for placed images'), but 'link status' is undefined — it never says whether this means missing/modified/up-to-date links, nor how it differs from siblings like resources_listLinks, resources_getLinkInfo, or image_info. An agent cannot distinguish it from those tools by description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives. With resources_listLinks and resources_getLinkInfo sitting beside it in the same domain, the absence of any differentiation is a real gap.

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