ado_list_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds 'fetched live from Azure DevOps', informing the agent of real-time API access and likely latency. The verb 'List' implicitly signals a read-only operation. However, it does not mention authentication needs, error behavior, or what qualifies as a 'link' (e.g., related work items vs hyperlinks).

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and object, followed by a useful qualifier about live fetching. No redundant words, no repetition of schema content, and no wasted space.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, this description is mostly adequate, but it leaves ambiguity about the return shape (list of objects?) and link types. Since there are no annotations to cover safety or behavior, a little more detail—like 'returns related work items and hyperlinks'—would make the description complete.

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 already fully documents the single parameter (work_item_id: Work item ID) with 100% coverage. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond confirming the operation targets a work item. Per the calibration baseline, this is a 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('links on a work item'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like ado_list_comments. The 'fetched live from Azure DevOps' qualifier adds context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from overlapping read tools such as ado_show or ado_fetch, so it stops short of a 5.

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 given on when to choose this tool over alternatives like ado_list_comments, ado_show, or ado_fetch. The only hint is 'fetched live', which implies real-time data but does not explain scenarios, exclusions, or caching alternatives. An agent must infer usage purely from the tool name and sibling list.

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