Suggest missing ticket links from code

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

No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's non-authoritative nature ('never asserted') and dependencies (shared files, imports, co-change). No side effects or auth needs are mentioned, but appropriate for a suggestion tool.

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?

Two sentences only; first sentence conveys purpose and scope with examples, second clarifies nature and parameter syntax. No redundancy, front-loaded.

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?

Description covers input parameters but lacks output format or any example result. For a simple tool with no output schema, this is a gap in completeness.

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 100% and description restates parameter meanings almost verbatim, adding no new insight. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: infer coupling between tickets from code and suggest missing links. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting suggestions are not folded into keystone/critical_path.

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 provides usage context: suggestions only, never asserted or folded. It implies when to use for non-authoritative link suggestions, but lacks explicit comparison to all siblings.

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