spec_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 hints that the result preserves standards URLs and file:line evidence, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether it actually links/mutates something, what output shape to expect, or what limits apply. This is a significant transparency gap.

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 one tight sentence with no superfluous wording. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a specific preservation detail, but it is almost so concise as to under-specify the tool's output.

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?

This is a four-parameter tool with no output schema, no annotations, and no usage guidance among a very long list of siblings. The description leaves the agent unsure of the return format, pagination behavior, when to choose this tool, and what 'link' means operationally.

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 only 25% (for the format enum). The description clarifies that the input is a symbol, but it adds nothing about limit, offset, or format behavior, and does not compensate for the missing schema docs on three of the four parameters.

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 states a specific verb-neutral action ('Link a symbol') and a clear resource ('documentation and source comments'), adding detail about preserving standards URLs and exact file:line evidence. It is not a tautology and is understandable, but it does not differentiate this tool from its many graph/read/search siblings.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool vs alternatives such as read_body, open_file, search, or callers. The intended use is only implied by the purpose wording; no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative tool names are given.

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