list_db_links

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully adds that results are scoped to the current user and names three returned attributes, but it does not explicitly confirm the operation is read-only, describe required privileges beyond visibility, or mention side effects or rate limits.

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?

A single tightly written sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded, followed by the returned attributes. Every component earns its place and there is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple, zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: what is listed, what scope applies, and what fields are returned. It stops short of richer return-format details or explicit read-only confirmation, but those gaps are minor for this tool's complexity.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The baseline score of 4 applies because no compensation for schema gaps is needed.

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?

It states a specific verb (List) and resource (database links), plus the visibility scope (visible to the current user), so the purpose is immediately clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from other list_* siblings such as list_synonyms or list_objects, relying instead on the resource name to do that work.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what the tool returns; an agent must infer that this is the tool for listing database links rather than reading it as an explicit usage recommendation.

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