zim_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains pagination, ranking, sidecar requirements, error conditions, response structure, and even edge cases like anchor link handling. It also documents the sidecar prerequisite for inbound queries, which is critical operational knowledge.

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?

Although long, the description is well-structured with clear headers (EXTRACT, ALIASES, DIRECTIONS, PARAMETERS, RESPONSE, ERRORS) and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity. There is no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 3 directions, pagination, sidecar dependency, error handling) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers response formats, error codes, pagination behavior, and even specific edge cases like anchor links and cursor mismatches. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description's PARAMETERS section elaborates on every parameter beyond the schema, including direction, kind, cursor, limit, offset, and default values. It explains constraints like 'related rejects offset' and 'kind is outbound only', which the schema does not convey. Given 0% schema coverage, this is essential and well-executed.

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 ('Look up') and resource ('links from one article'), and clearly delineates three distinct directions (outbound, inbound, related) that distinguish it from sibling tools like zim_search or zim_get. The purpose is unambiguous and unique among the sibling set.

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 explicit aliases and routing instructions ('Route through THIS tool with the matching direction'), giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as comparing to zim_search for full-text queries. This is a minor gap since the aliases effectively define the trigger conditions.

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