list_work_item_links

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is read-only. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations, detailing direction-specific behaviors (role carry, Lucene fallback, role dropping) without contradicting any annotations.

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 concise sentences pack essential information without fluff. First sentence states the action, subsequent ones detail direction behavior. No wasted words.

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 has 5 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description focuses on the key complexity (direction behavior). Pagination is standard and schema covers it. Description is adequate for the tool's 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?

Schema coverage is 40% (low), so the description should compensate. It explains 'direction' semantics well, but does not describe 'page_size' or 'page_number'. The description adds value for direction but doesn't fully address all parameter nuances.

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 action: 'List a work item's links', using a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes between forward and backward directions, which differentiates it from sibling tools like create_work_item_links or delete_work_item_links.

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 explains when to use forward vs back direction, including behavior differences (role preservation vs loss) and how to recover roles. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool, the guidance is sufficient for choosing between directions.

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