list_links

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

Description is minimal; it states it returns link names and URLs but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and fails to cover these aspects.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by args. No extraneous information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points or clearer separation of args).

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 has only one parameter and an output schema, so completeness requirements are moderate. The description adequately states the purpose and return values, but lacks usage context and behavioral details. Given no annotations, it meets the minimum but is not thorough.

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 coverage is 0% (no description in schema). The description adds only 'school_id: School ID', which is trivial and does not explain the parameter's format, how to obtain it, or any constraints (e.g., required format). This adds minimal value beyond 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?

Description clearly states it lists quick-access links for a school, provides examples (calendars, menus, forms), and mentions return values (names and URLs). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_files or list_forms, achieving a specific verb+resource distinction.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention conditions for use, prerequisites, or scenarios where another tool might be preferable.

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