list-issue-links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a read operation ('List'), implying non-destructive behavior, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or the format of returned links. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List all external links') and target ('attached to an issue'). There is zero wasted verbiage, making it easy to parse quickly while conveying the essential purpose.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns a list of links. It doesn't explain what 'external links' entail (e.g., URLs, references), the return format, or behavioral aspects like error handling. For a read operation with structured inputs but no output details, more context is needed.

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 both parameters ('project_id', 'issue_id') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying these IDs are needed to locate the issue. This meets the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('external links attached to an issue'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get-issue-link' (singular) and 'list-issues' (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all similar tools like 'list-issue-attachments' or 'list-issue-comments'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing issue), exclusions (e.g., not for internal links), or compare to siblings like 'get-issue-link' (for a single link) or 'list-issue-attachments' (for files). This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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