linkding_changes_since

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations don't: it auto-follows next offsets up to max_pages, and deleted bookmarks are excluded. It stops short of describing pagination limits reached or partial-result behavior when max_pages is hit.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then pagination behavior, then an exclusion caveat. Every sentence carries information an agent needs; nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim.

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 five params, one required, and no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: the timestamp filter, the scope options, automatic offset following bounded by max_pages, and the deletion caveat. The only absence is the shape of returned bookmark objects, which is a minor concern given conformance to linkding's bookmark API.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds non-schema meaning: it explains that 'next offsets' are followed automatically up to max_pages, which clarifies that max_pages controls internal traversal rather than being a raw offset param. It also confirms deleted bookmarks are not listed, reinforcing the scope enum's note.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource with a precise filter ('List bookmarks added or modified after a timestamp'), which clearly separates it from plain list tools. It doesn't name a sibling tool explicitly, so the differentiation is implied by the timestamp-based sync semantics rather than stated.

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 timestamp filter and the 'added or modified' framing imply an incremental-sync use case, but the description never says when to choose this over linkding_list_bookmarks or linkding_list_archived_bookmarks, nor any exclusion like 'use list_bookmarks for a full enumeration'.

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