list_work_item_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds minimal context by scoping the listing to a specific work item, but does not disclose pagination behavior, potential for partial results due to openWorldHint, or how the 'all' claim reconciles with cursor/per_page parameters. It neither contradicts annotations nor adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundant content. Every word contributes to the core purpose ('List', 'all links', 'attached to a work item'). It is appropriately front-loaded and minimal.

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 has seven parameters and no output schema, yet the description only provides a bare summary. It does not explain return value shape, pagination, sorting, field selection, or how 'all' interacts with the cursor/per_page parameters. The one-line description is inadequate for an agent to confidently invoke the tool, especially given the pagination and expansion options.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema, and the tool description provides no parameter semantics either. The description does not explain the meaning, purpose, or valid values for cursor, expand, fields, order_by, per_page, project_id, or work_item_id. With seven parameters, the lack of any compensation in the description is a significant gap.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all links attached to a work item'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create/update/delete_work_item_link by focusing on listing, and from retrieve_work_item_link by implying multiple links. It also differentiates from list_work_item_relations by explicitly saying 'links' rather than 'relations'.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_work_item_relations or retrieve_work_item_link. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred contexts. The only implied usage is from the tool name itself, which is insufficient.

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