Get Behavioural Links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it explicitly declares 'Read-only; no side effects' and explains the shape and meaning of the returned fields (proposals semantics, empty entity_id meaning, questions overlap with get_review_queue). It omits auth/permission requirements, but the read-only declaration is the key behavioral fact.

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 purpose and read-only property are front-loaded in the first sentence; the second sentence is dense but each clause about the return payload carries distinct information. Slightly long but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so explaining return values is technically optional, yet the description adds useful semantics on top. Combined with the explicit read-only note, an agent has enough to call this correctly; the only real gap is the undocumented server_version parameter.

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 only 50% (model_id is documented, server_version is not), so the description should compensate but adds no parameter-level meaning at all. Neither model_id nor server_version is clarified or constrained beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the links from a behavioural model's elements and zones to the model's assets and trust boundaries'), which is precise enough to separate it from siblings like declare_behavioural_link and accept_behavioural_link_proposals.

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?

Provides clear routing context: it notes that a link is declared via declare_behavioural_link and that proposals_hash is consumed by accept_behavioural_link_proposals, so the agent can infer when to use this read tool vs the mutation siblings. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when / not when' statement.

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