List all change request links

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, indicating a safe, idempotent read operation. The description adds no further behavioral details (e.g., pagination, rate limits). Since annotations cover the safety profile, this is adequate but not enhanced.

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?

One concise sentence plus the endpoint path. Efficient, though the path repetition adds minor redundancy. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the action.

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?

The description lacks details about what 'links' are returned (e.g., outbound links, inbound, or both) and the output format. Given no output schema and the need to differentiate from siblings like 'list_change_request_links', more context is necessary for accurate tool invocation.

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 100%, so all 4 parameters are documented. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the endpoint path. With full schema coverage, 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 explicitly states the tool lists all change request links and includes the HTTP path. The title 'List all change request links' further clarifies. It is well-differentiated from siblings like 'gitbook_list_space_links' and 'gitbook_list_change_request_links' by specifying 'page links' in the tool name.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Usage is implied for retrieving links within a change request page context, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling might be preferred for other link types (e.g., backlinks).

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