getWorkbookLinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (weekly titles with RTF URLs) and the automatic month/year behavior. However, it does not describe pagination, limit of results, error handling, or indicate that this is a non-destructive read operation. The extra context about STEP 1 adds workflow transparency but not deep behavioral detail.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with 'STEP 1' and a gerund phrase that immediately states the action. Every sentence contributes: purpose, usage timing, return value and default behavior. No filler or redundant information. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential return value (weekly titles with URLs) and the default behavior (current month/year). It does not explain how the URLs might be used downstream or what happens with no results, but the focus on listing available weeks is sufficient for its simple role. The missing details are minor.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal semantic value: it mentions automatic use of current month/year (already in the 'issue' parameter) and RTF URLs (already in 'fileformat'). No new parameter nuances are introduced. The schema already handles parameter documentation.

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 tool's function: getting JW.org CLM meeting workbook weeks, returning weekly titles with RTF download URLs. It distinguishes itself from siblings like getWorkbookContent by positioning itself as the first step. The verb 'Get' and specific resource 'JW.org CLM workbook weeks' make the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'When a user asks for CLM workbook content, use this tool FIRST.' It also explains the automatic fallback to current month/year. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, the 'FIRST' directive implies a workflow priority over content tools. This is clear context with a strong usage hint, but lacks direct comparison to alternatives.

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