linkding_list_shared_bookmarks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the endpoint path and the "public bookmarks" framing; it says nothing about authentication for shared listings, pagination behavior, or result shape.

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 fragments, front-loaded with the core action; nothing is padded. The bare endpoint path is low-value filler for an agent, keeping it below a 5.

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 ten-parameter, unpaginated-in-description listing tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not say what a result looks like or that limit/offset drive paging across a shared collection. Adequate to call correctly, but not complete.

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 all ten parameters are already documented in the schema, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only adds meaning for `user` (public/shared bookmarks) and leaves q, sort, bundle, and the time filters entirely to the schema.

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 ("List bookmarks shared by a user") and adds the upstream endpoint. That scope word "shared" separates it from linkding_list_bookmarks, but the distinction is left implicit 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?

"Pass user when you want one person's public bookmarks" gives a conditional cue for one parameter, which implies usage but not when to choose this tool over linkding_list_bookmarks or linkding_list_archived_bookmarks. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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