list_work_item_links

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as the return type being a list of WorkItemLink objects. It does not contradict annotations, but it does not disclose additional traits like authorization requirements 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?

The description is concise, using a docstring format that lists arguments and return type in a structured way. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the output schema exists, the description adequately states the return type. However, it lacks context about what a WorkItemLink represents, how it differs from other link or relation types, and whether pagination or filtering is supported. The tool is simple but could benefit from more 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by documenting the two required parameters as UUIDs and the optional params as a dictionary. This adds meaningful type and structure information beyond the bare schema, helping the agent understand expected values.

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 lists links for a work item. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('links for a work item'), but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'list_work_item_relations', which might cause confusion. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many similar tools (e.g., list_work_item_relations, list_work_item_activities), and the description offers no context or exclusions.

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