list_work_item_links

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by describing a read operation. The description adds behavioral context: direction impacts returned data (role preservation). No contradictions. Could elaborate on pagination 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?

Two sentences, highly concise and front-loaded. No redundant phrasing. Every sentence adds value.

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 read-only annotations, output schema presence, and the tool's listing nature, the description covers the key nuance (direction behavior). Pagination and other parameters are not addressed, but output schema likely covers return structure. Slightly incomplete.

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 40%, only 2 of 5 parameters are described in schema. The description adds no parameter-level details (e.g., syntax, constraints). The direction enum is implied but not explained further. Additional parameter context would improve score.

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 a work item's links, with a specific verb ('List') and resource ('work item's links'). It also notes directionality, distinguishing it from potential siblings like delete or update link tools.

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: forward carries role and suspect; back is a Lucene fallback that drops role. It provides a recovery suggestion ('recover it via forward on the source'). However, it lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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