link_repos

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

Given no annotations, the description adequately discloses behavioral traits: it records a dependency, lists relationship types, and specifies the return format ({linked: True, edge: {src, dst, kind}}). It does not mention idempotency or error handling, but the core behavior is transparent.

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 concise: a single-sentence purpose, a use-case statement, a warning, and a parameter list. It is front-loaded and every sentence serves a purpose, with no wasted words.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics. It mentions the return format and a prerequisite condition. Minor gaps: no error behavior or update semantics, but overall adequate.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the meaning of most parameters (src_repo, dst_repo, relationship, service_type, port, api_base_url) and their types/options. It misses the 'note' parameter, but overall adds significant value 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?

The description clearly states the tool records a dependency relationship between two repos, with a specific verb and resource ('Record a dependency relationship'). It provides a clear use case ('Call this when you discover that one repo imports from or calls another'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like dependency_graph or org_dependencies.

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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('when you discover that one repo imports from or calls another') and when not to ('Do NOT call for repos not yet registered via cognirepo init'). This provides clear guidance on appropriate usage context.

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