get_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of conveying behavior. 'Get' implies a read operation and 'textual links' identifies the kind of output, but the description does not clarify link format, whether URLs or references are returned, or any edge-case behavior.

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 one tight sentence with no filler and includes useful examples in parentheses. It is appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter tool, though it sacrifices some helpful context for brevity.

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 getter with one fully documented parameter, this is close to sufficient. However, without an output schema, the description does not fully explain what a 'link' looks like, so an agent may still be unsure what the response contains.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter tref, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get textual links to other sources') and adds clarifying examples such as commentaries and parallel passages. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_related or get_ref_topic_links, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a large sibling list including get_related, get_ref_topic_links, and get_terms, the agent gets no criteria for making that choice.

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