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 discloses that the list is 'canonical' and 'when available', but lacks details on side effects, idempotency, or what happens if links are unavailable. The behavioral traits are minimally addressed.

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, concise sentence that communicates the essential purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key action 'Return the canonical list'.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description reasonably compensates by specifying the content (official links, categorized as website, support, docs). It could be more precise about the return format (e.g., array of strings), but is sufficient for a simple list 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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. With no parameters, the description need not add any param meaning; a baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the tool requires no input and the description covers the purpose.

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 PVZ Fusion' and specifies examples (website, support, docs), making the purpose explicit and distinct from the sibling tool 'get_game_rules' which likely returns game rules.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations. While the sibling tool name hints at differentiation, no direct comparison or context for usage is given.

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