decoration_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read operation but doesn't explain what 'presentations' means, whether it returns a list, its format, or any side effects. Completely insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, so it is concise, but it lacks structure and fails to front-load meaningful information. Being short is not a virtue when it omits essential details.

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?

For a tool with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It doesn't clarify the concept of a 'formatted-string decoration' or the structure of the returned hyperlink presentations, leaving the agent with no basis to call it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the three undocumented parameters (name, title, session_id). It provides no explanation of what these parameters control or how they affect the output, making it impossible for an agent to fill them correctly.

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 states a clear verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('hyperlink presentations from a formatted-string decoration'). It distinguishes itself from action-oriented siblings like decoration_click_link, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like decoration_click_link or decoration_click. No context about typical scenarios or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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