linkding_get_bookmark

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 fully covered and the description doesn't contradict it. The description adds only the underlying REST path GET /api/bookmarks/<id>/, which tells the agent this is a thin API passthrough, but says nothing about 404 behavior or what the returned object contains.

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?

Two compact clauses with the action front-loaded; nothing is wasted. The trailing endpoint path is mildly redundant but serves as a useful mapping hint, so it does not meaningfully hurt readability.

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 single-resource read with one required parameter, complete annotations, and a fully described schema, this is nearly sufficient. The only gap is that no output schema exists and the description doesn't sketch the returned bookmark's shape or what happens when the id doesn't exist.

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 is one parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents 'Bookmark id.' fully. The description's 'by id' merely restates that, adding no format, sourcing, or error semantics beyond the schema — the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb and resource ('Get one bookmark by id'), which clearly distinguishes it from the plural listing siblings like linkding_list_bookmarks and from the other single-resource getters (get_tag, get_bundle, get_asset). It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the singular 'one ... by id' framing makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'by id' signals that the caller must already know the bookmark id, so listing/search tools should be used first. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no named alternative (e.g. linkding_list_bookmarks to find an id).

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