getTableLink

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it specifies the required scope ('tables:read') and explicitly marks it as '[READ-ONLY]', indicating it's a safe, non-destructive operation. It also references the corresponding API endpoint, adding context. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, error handling, or response format.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place: it states the purpose, maps to the API endpoint, specifies the required scope, and indicates read-only status. There is no wasted text, making it highly efficient and clear.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, read-only), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the action, scope, and safety, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or how it differs from sibling tools. This makes it adequate but not fully comprehensive for an agent's needs.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter 'tableLinkId'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples or constraints), resulting in a baseline score of 3. Since there are parameters, it doesn't qualify for the baseline 4 for zero parameters.

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 action ('fetches information') and resource ('about a table link'), distinguishing it from siblings like getTable, getTableRecord, or listTableRecords. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from getTableAggregation or getTableQuery, which might also fetch table-related information, leaving some ambiguity.

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 by specifying the required scope ('tables:read') and indicating it's read-only, which suggests it's for retrieving data without modification. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like getTable or getTableRecord, or any exclusions (e.g., not for listing multiple links).

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