Get Issue Remote Links

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It states 'Lists', implying a read-only operation, and includes the endpoint and link types, which adds useful context. However, it does not mention permissions, pagination, error handling, or the exact return format, leaving some gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Lists an issue's remote links'), then provides the endpoint and examples. Every word adds value with no 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?

For a simple one-parameter list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is largely complete. It states what the tool does, the exact endpoint, and the types of links included. It could mention the response format or potential error cases, but given the tool's simplicity, this is sufficient.

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 schema already provides full coverage with a clear description of the only parameter, issueKey ('Issue key, e.g. 'ABC-123''). The description's mention of '{key}' in the endpoint reinforces this but adds no new information beyond what the schema states.

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 lists an issue's remote links, using a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('an issue's remote links'). It also provides the exact endpoint and examples of link types, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_issue_comments or get_transitions.

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 clear context on what the tool does and what content it covers (Confluence pages and generic web links), which helps the agent decide when to use it. It does not explicitly mention when not to use alternatives, but the context is sufficient for a straightforward list operation.

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