get_linked_sessionsRetrieve all sessions linked to a given session in both directions, including relationship kind and direction, to map conversation connections.
某会话的全部关联（双向：它指向的 / 指向它的），带 kind 与方向
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | No | 项目根绝对路径。仅当服务端提示 unresolved_project（多项目/未自动识别）时选择传此参；传一次后本连接记住 | |
| session_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are bidirectional and include kind and direction, but it omits read-only safety, permissions, pagination, ordering, and whether project scoping affects results.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its terseness leaves little structure or signposting for an agent.
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 query, it conveys the core scope and returned attributes. However, with no annotations and no output schema, more detail on safe read behavior, result limits, project scoping, and sibling alternatives would be needed for full 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 50%: the project parameter is well described in the schema, but the required session_id has no schema description. The description only says 'a certain session' and adds no ID format, requiredness, or project/session relationship detail.
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 names a specific resource and scope: all associations of a session, bidirectional, with kind and direction. It is clear what the tool retrieves, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings such as link_sessions or suggest_related_sessions.
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?
It does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like link_sessions, suggest_related_sessions, or get_session_detail. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or routing guidance beyond the implied purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.