get_links

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

Annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint). The description adds the return format (dictionary with title and links), but discloses no additional behavioral traits such as error handling, pagination, or behavior for nonexistent articles. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences with no redundant words, directly stating the function and the return value. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 tool is simple, has an output schema, and comprehensive annotations. The description covers the core function and return structure, which is sufficient for the tool's simplicity. It does not mention edge cases, but those are not necessary given the context and schema.

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 schema has a single required parameter 'title' with 0% schema description coverage. The description implicitly refers to the article title but provides no explicit parameter semantics, format, or examples. For a single obvious parameter, the meaning is inferable from the tool's purpose, but the description does not compensate for the lack of schema description.

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 identifies the action 'Get' and the resource 'links contained within a Wikipedia article', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_sections or get_summary. The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage by stating what it does, but lacks any stated criteria, prerequisites, or exclusions that would help an agent choose this tool over siblings.

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