stellaris_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the conceptual graph relationship but says nothing about link direction, pagination via limit, return format, permissions, or error behavior.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the parenthetical clarifies the intended reading flow. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is not complete enough. It conveys the core concept but leaves an agent without guidance on the title format, limit behavior, or the shape of returned links.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. 'Given page' loosely maps to the required title parameter, but there is no explanation of whether title is an exact page name, slug, or search string, and the optional limit parameter is not mentioned at all.

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 resource relationship: pages linked from a given page, adding the intent 'what should I read next'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like stellaris_get_page, stellaris_outline, or stellaris_learning_path, so it misses full sibling 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 phrase 'what should I read next' implies a recommendation use case, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this versus stellaris_get_page or stellaris_learning_path. It also omits any exclusions or prerequisites for calling the tool.

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