wiki_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful fact that output differs by direction, but says nothing about link format, whether titles/URLs are included, ordering, or pagination limits.

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?

A single tight sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The trailing purpose clause is slightly vague ('related concepts') but costs little.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate to call it correctly. The main omission is any hint of return shape or result limits, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It does map the two modes (outgoing links vs pages linking back), which effectively explains the 'incoming' flag, but it never mentions the parameter name, its boolean nature, or the default of false.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Return links from a page') with the directional scope spelled out ('or pages linking to it'). It is clearly distinct from read_wiki_page, search_wiki, and list_wiki_pages, though it never names a sibling to compare against.

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?

'to follow dependencies and related concepts' implies when to reach for it (graph traversal / discovering adjacent pages), but there is no explicit when-not or alternative named versus read_wiki_page or search_wiki. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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