related

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint: true, which conveys the safe read-only nature. The description adds valuable context by specifying the return structure ({id, outbound, inbound}) and the error condition if the topic does not exist. This goes beyond the annotation's basic safety flag and helps set expectations, though it doesn't cover potential edge cases like pagination or depth of linking.

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 concise, consisting of three sentences: purpose, return format explanation, and error behavior. Every sentence carries useful information without fluff. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, making it easy for an agent to quickly grasp and use.

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 tool with one parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotation, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns (including semantics of outbound/inbound), and error behavior. The presence of an output schema means return value details don't need to be repeated. No gaps are apparent.

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?

The input schema fully documents the only parameter, topic_id, with a description 'Topic id whose link graph to report.' Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description doesn't need to add much. The tool description's mention of 'for a topic' is redundant with the schema. No additional semantic nuance is provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's function: 'Report outbound and inbound wiki-link relationships for a topic.' It uses a specific verb ('report') and identifies the resource ('wiki-link relationships') and scope ('for a topic'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like read (which reads content) and discover_topics (which lists topics) by focusing on link relationships.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to get link relationships for a topic) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. There is enough specificity to infer appropriate usage, but it lacks direct 'use this instead of X' guidance. Given the sibling tools, a brief note on when not to use it would improve it.

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