get_official_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns a canonical list, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not disclose source, caching, or authentication needs, but for a zero-parameter tool, the behavior is minimal and acceptable.

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 with no wasted words. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded with the core function.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does (returns canonical list) and what it contains (website, support, docs). No additional context is needed for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is 100% trivially. The description adds value by listing types of links (website, support, docs), which is additional context beyond the empty schema. Baseline score for 0 parameters is 4.

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 the canonical list of official links for Muse AI Image, specifying website, support, and docs when available. This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes from sibling tools list_styles and get_pricing which cover different topics.

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 implies usage context: when official links for Muse AI Image are needed. With no parameters and simple retrieval, the use case is clear. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or state when not to use it, though sibling names provide context.

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