links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It conveys that this is a read/report operation and describes the output line format and the two result sections, which is useful. However, it says nothing about the effect of 'include_unconfirmed' or what an 'unconfirmed' vs 'confirmed' link means, leaving a behavioral toggle unexplained.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler, but the first sentence is a long run-on with nested parentheticals and arrow glyphs ('...then the org's uncloned repos linked by packages (with orgs configured)') that forces re-reading. The content earns its place; the packaging does not.

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 return values needn't be explained, yet the description voluntarily explains the line format — good. With no annotations and a 2-parameter schema at 0% coverage, the missing explanation of 'include_unconfirmed' is the main completeness gap for an otherwise simple read tool.

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, and it does so for only one of two parameters: it explains that an empty 'repo' means the session's repo, which is genuinely non-obvious. The second parameter, 'include_unconfirmed', is never mentioned and its semantics must be guessed from the boolean name.

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 concretely what it returns: which repos a repo links to, with directional markers (→, ←, ↔) and the connecting evidence, plus uncloned org repos linked by packages. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'related' by noting that tool supplies the evidence. The only weakness is the roundabout noun-phrase framing ('Which repos a repo is linked to') rather than a clean verb.

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?

Gives clear operational context: leave repo empty to target the current session's repo, and when the user asks what a repo links to, present this list as-is. It also routes the agent to the alternative ('call related for the evidence') with the condition that selects it. No explicit statement of when not to use it, but the sibling handoff is unambiguous.

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