get_project_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns all placed links and which fields are included, which implies a read-only listing operation, but it does not state pagination, ordering, authorization requirements, or whether any filtering is possible.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every element names either the resource or a returned field, so it is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter listing tool.

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?

The tool is simple and has an output schema, so the description need not explain return values in detail. However, for a tool with no annotations and an undocumented required parameter, the definition is only minimally complete: it gives purpose and fields but omits parameter meaning and usage context.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for the undocumented required project_id parameter. The phrase 'проекта' implies project context, but the description never explains what project_id means, its format, or any constraints, leaving the only parameter largely unexplained.

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 clearly identifies the resource and scope: all placed links for a project, and it lists the returned attributes (platform, page URL, anchor, price, status). It is distinguishable from URL-level siblings such as get_url_links by the explicit project scope, though it does not name any sibling.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. It does not explain whether to choose this tool over list_urls, get_url_links, or get_url_anchors when the agent needs project-level versus URL-level link data.

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