List Tracker issue remote links

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds useful non-annotation detail by disclosing the shape of each returned entry (link type, direction, external object key, owning application), which matters because no output schema exists. It does not discuss pagination or scoping 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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the operative scoping/alternative contrast is placed last as a clean routing hint. Nothing is restated from the schema or title.

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 single-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, the identity of returned entries, and the sibling distinction. Only minor details (ordering, whether the list can be empty or truncated) are absent, which is acceptable at this complexity.

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?

Only one parameter (issue_key) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning for the parameter; this is the baseline case where structured data does the work.

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+resource (list remote links from a Tracker issue to external applications) and immediately names the sibling it is not ('for issue-to-issue links use links_list'). An agent can distinguish it from tracker_links_list / tracker_entities_links_list without opening any schema.

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?

It gives clear context (external-app links such as Bitbucket) and routes the agent to the alternative tool for the issue-to-issue case. There is no explicit list of exclusions or prerequisites beyond that single contrast, so it falls just short of the top band.

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