suggest_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 and explicitly discloses the most critical behavioral trait: the tool does NOT modify the page. It does not describe what kind of suggestions are returned or whether errors occur for missing pages, but the primary side-effect boundary is clearly stated.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with the essential behavior first and the important non-mutating clarification in a parenthetical. Every word contributes meaning; no filler or repeated references to already-structured data.

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?

For a simple single-parameter review-type tool without annotations or an output schema, the description covers the core behavior, the target page, and the non-modification guarantee. The only minor omission is an explicit statement about the form of returned suggestions, but 'suggest' sufficiently implies the result is a list of wikilinks.

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% and the description does not directly explain 'slug', but the phrase 'a specific page' clarifies that slug identifies the target page. Naming conventions or required format for slug are not supplied, though the single-parameter simplicity reduces risk.

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 uses a specific verb ('suggest'), a clear resource domain ('wikilinks'), and a target ('a specific page'), while the parenthetical 'review mode — does NOT modify the page' distinguishes it from write-oriented sibling tools like append_to_page or update_note_section. This removes ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 indicates this is a review-mode operation and should not to be used when a mutation is desired, but it never names alternatives such as find_related or read_wiki_page or states explicit conditions for choosing this tool over them. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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