get_omp_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; "list" plus "fabric-wide" conveys that this is a broad read aggregation across all devices rather than a targeted lookup. However, it says nothing about whether results are paginated, how down links are represented, or any auth/prerequisite details.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the scope qualifier, with no filler. Slightly terse given the missing routing information, but no wasted words.

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 one-parameter read-only list tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description tells the agent what is returned (OMP peering links) and at what scope (all devices). Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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% and the single parameter is an enum (up/down) with the label "Link state", so the schema already does the work. The description's phrase "in the given state" only restates the filter, adding no format or semantics beyond 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?

Specific verb (list) plus a precise resource (OMP peering links) and an explicit scope (fabric-wide, all devices). It is distinguishable from related siblings like get_omp_peers, though it does not name them to sharpen the boundary.

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?

"Fabric-wide" implies the usage context (aggregate view rather than a per-device query) and the state argument implies filtering, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to get_omp_peers/get_omp_status as alternatives.

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