list_linkgrabber

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact output content (status, collecting state, and UUIDs), which is valuable behavioral detail. The verb 'list' implicitly indicates a read-only operation, though explicit safety notes are absent.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word adds value—first the primary function, then the critical UUID usage note.

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 parameter-less list tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what is listed, status details, the collecting state, and the presence of UUIDs for actions. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description appropriately does not discuss them. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description adds no confusion by mentioning parameters that do not exist.

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 states the tool lists linkgrabber packages and links with online/offline status and whether JD is still collecting. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_downloads by explicitly naming 'linkgrabber' and provides actionable output details (UUIDs).

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 implies usage context: it is for inspecting linkgrabber items and the UUIDs are meant for subsequent actions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an AI agent to know when to invoke it.

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