link_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains that edges are extracted automatically via regex from specific sources (task memos, reports), and lists the kinds of IDs it handles. While it does not cover error behavior or performance, it sufficiently discloses the extraction mechanism and scope of the 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?

The description is exceptionally concise: two sentences front-loading the purpose and immediately following with the extraction method. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or extraneous information.

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 presence of an output schema (context signal indicates 'has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's functionality, extraction method, and the kinds of IDs, providing sufficient context for an agent to select and use the tool. Minor omissions (e.g., pagination beyond limit param, error handling) are acceptable given schema 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the types of IDs (wf_id, uuid, short-hash, memory-slug) and mentioning the direction field, but it does not significantly enhance the schema's already clear descriptions. 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: query cross-domain reference edges for an object. The verb 'query' and resource 'cross-domain reference edges' are specific, and it explains the direction (who references it / what it references), making it easy to understand. Although a sibling tool 'link_trace' exists, the description's focus on 'cross-domain' and extraction method provides 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 description provides context on when to use the tool (querying cross-references extracted automatically from task memos and reports) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The extraction method (zero-LLM regex) is mentioned, which helps infer appropriate use cases, but lacks explicit guidance.

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