Wiki Get Page Links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via 'List' but says nothing about pagination (limit defaults to 50), truncation behavior, permission requirements, or whether the result is a flat list versus grouped output.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The parenthetical adds mild scope framing, though it is vague enough to be borderline filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple with full schema coverage. However, an agent still cannot tell from the description whether results are outgoing links only or how the limit behaves, leaving a modest gap.

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% (title = 'Page title', limit = 'Max links'), so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (wiki links contained in a page), and the phrase 'contained in a page' implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling wiki_get_backlinks (which would return inbound links). It does not name that sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 parenthetical '(related-topic discovery)' hints at when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative such as wiki_get_backlinks or wiki_search for contrasting cases.

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