View Link Trees

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds domain context (tracks views/clicks, use in CVs) but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination or authentication requirements. Beyond annotations, it provides useful but not critical behavioral detail.

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 three sentences, clear and front-loaded. The first sentence delivers the core action, the second provides domain context, and the third offers conditional guidance. It is not overly verbose, though the third sentence could be seen as slightly tangential for a simple read tool.

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 that this is a simple read-all tool with no parameters and annotations covering safety, the description is adequately complete. It specifies return format (ID and slug), suggests fallback behavior, and explains domain relevance. It does not cover error conditions or ordering, but these are minor omissions.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter information to describe. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as per guidelines. The description adds no param semantics but does mention the return format (ID and slug), which is marginally beneficial.

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 'Get all the user's link tree pages (each returns its ID and slug)'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('link tree pages'), and the plural form distinguishes it from sibling tool 'get_linktree'. The additional context about what link trees are used for reinforces purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to view all link trees) and suggests an alternative action ('suggest creating one via create_linktree') if the result is empty. It does not explicitly exclude use cases for a single link tree, but the plural naming and contextual hints are sufficient.

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