linkding_list_bookmarks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the response shape ('count plus next and previous offsets'), which is real pagination information not available in any output schema.

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 tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the verb+resource before the endpoint and parameters. The only blemish is the incomplete parameter roster, which costs clarity rather than bytes.

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 nine-parameter, zero-required list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it lists, the endpoint, that it is filterable, and the pagination envelope of the response. The main residual gap is that three of the nine filters (sort, shared, unread) are never mentioned.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter thoroughly, which sets the baseline at 3. The description's parameter enumeration is partial and inconsistent — it names q, limit, offset, modified_since, added_since and bundle but silently omits sort, shared and unread, adding no semantics beyond the schema and mildly under-representing the surface.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List active bookmarks') and grounds it in the concrete API endpoint (GET /api/bookmarks/). The word 'active' carves out a scope distinct from the sibling tools linkding_list_archived_bookmarks and linkding_list_shared_bookmarks, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to siblings. Usage is only implied by the 'active' scope and the list of filter parameters, which suggests this is the general browsing/search entry point.

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