get_ref_topic_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens for unknown references, whether results are a list, or any edge cases. 'Get' implies read-only, but the description adds no behavioral depth beyond the tool's name.

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?

A single concise sentence with no filler or repetition. The action is front-loaded, and every word earns its place. It sacrifices some helpful context for brevity, but remains an efficient statement.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a large sibling list containing overlapping terms like get_links and get_topics, this description is too sparse. It fails to clarify the return format, error behavior, or selection context, leaving an agent with significant uncertainty.

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%, with 'tref' described as 'The text reference.' The description's 'specific text reference' adds negligible meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.

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 identifies the verb and resource: 'Get topic links' scoped to 'a specific text reference.' It distinguishes the tool from generic get_links or get_topics by the reference requirement, though it does not name sibling tools or explicitly contrast them.

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 given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_links, get_topics, get_all_topics, or get_topic_graph. The description states only what the tool does, not when it should be selected.

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