list_entity_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only restates the tool's action ('List links') without adding contextual details like read-only safety, pagination, sorting, or the nature of 'links.' This adds little beyond what the tool name suggests.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition.

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 tool's simplicity, the presence of a complete input schema, and an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose. However, it lacks disambiguation from sibling tools like list_links and does not clarify what 'links' include, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (entity_id, entity_type, output_format). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so it remains at the baseline.

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 a specific action ('List links') with a defined resource scope ('project, portfolio, or goal'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like list_links (which likely handles issue links) and list_external_links (external URLs), avoiding ambiguity.

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 identifies the exact entity types the tool applies to, giving clear context for when it should be used. It does not, however, explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as using list_links for issues or list_external_links for external links.

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