List execution links

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, which already signals a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the types of URLs returned (bugs, reports, CI) and the endpoint name, giving the agent a clearer picture of the result content without contradicting the annotation.

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 short sentence that conveys the essential information with no redundant words. It front-loads the action and resource.

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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the tool's purpose and the content of the results. It could mention return format, but the examples and endpoint reference make it 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?

The input schema provides a complete description for execution_id ('Test execution id'), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond indicating the URLs are attached to the execution, which is already implied by the parameter name and 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 uses a specific verb 'Returns' and identifies the resource as 'URLs attached to the execution', with concrete examples (bugs, reports, CI). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like add_link and remove_link.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the phrasing implies it is the read operation for execution links. It does not name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it earns only an implied-usage score.

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