Get Issue Links

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already signals this is a safe read operation, so the description adds no new behavioral context. It does not clarify whether 'related links' includes incoming and outgoing links or whether link types are returned. The description adds no value beyond the annotation.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is slightly awkwardly phrased ('issue related links'). It is front-loaded with the main action, so it remains concise and readable.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is adequate. However, it lacks any clarification on what types of links are returned or whether both directions are included. Given the output schema exists, the agent can infer structure, but some behavioral details are missing.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the required issue_id parameter. The description only says 'by its id', which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the full parameter documentation.

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 it retrieves related links to other issues for a specific issue by its ID. The verb 'Get' and resource 'related links to other issues' are specific, and the resource is distinct from sibling tools like issue_get or issue_get_comments, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It gives no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. The usage is merely implied by the function name and description.

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