links

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add useful semantics not in annotations — `exists false` signals a broken link and `target` names the bundle and file — but says nothing about error cases (missing file, unknown concept) or result size.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core idea ("Edges of one concept") and has no filler sentences, but the compressed §-cross-reference notation and sentence fragments make it slow to parse. Density here costs clarity rather than saving space.

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, the description usefully documents the returned `out`/`in` structure and the `exists` flag, which is the most important missing piece. However, for a 2-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the input side (notably `file` and the empty `bundle` default) remains undefined.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, yet it never explains what `file` means (path, concept id, relative location) or how the optional `bundle` default of "" resolves. The phrase "target names the bundle and file" describes output fields rather than the input parameters.

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 resource — the inbound/outbound edges of a single concept — and describes both directions (`out` = its links and §6.2 path fields, `in` = concepts linking to or citing it). It also disambiguates from lineage/provenance ("sources are lineage, §5.1"). It falls short of 5 because the §-section references and absence of an explicit verb make the purpose partly dependent on external spec knowledge.

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?

It gives a concrete precondition for one direction: "Check `in` before moving, renaming or deprecating a concept," which ties directly to the move/rename/archive siblings. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer `get` or `provenance` instead, so it lacks full alternative routing.

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