linkding_list_bundles

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 the REST endpoint and the limit/offset paging mechanism, but says nothing about response shape, total counts, or ordering, which are the remaining behavioral unknowns.

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, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the clarifying definition placed after the action statement. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

A simple, fully optional-parameter read tool whose annotations and 100%-covered schema carry most of the burden; the added domain definition of a bundle closes the biggest ambiguity. The only gap is that, with no output schema, the return structure and pagination metadata are never described.

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%: limit has a page-size meaning with the server default of 100, and offset is defined as results to skip. The description only restates that the call uses limit and offset, adding no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List bundles") plus the underlying endpoint, and the final sentence defines what a bundle actually is (a saved search, not a bookmark list), which separates it conceptually from linkding_list_bookmarks. It does not explicitly name bundle siblings like linkding_get_bundle, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 implied by the concept definition: an agent learns bundles are saved searches, so this tool enumerates them rather than listing bookmarks. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of paging strategy or when to prefer linkding_get_bundle for a single bundle.

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