get_page_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. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation and the description enumerates what is retrieved, but it says nothing about permissions, cost of computing broken links, pagination, or behavior when the page cannot be resolved. It also doesn't state what happens if neither selector is given, which matters since both parameters are optional.

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 definition is short, front-loaded with the core action, and cleanly sectioned into Args and Returns. The Returns line ('Link information returned by LeafWiki') is a tautology that earns no place, and output schema already exists, so that line is the one wasted element.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both input parameters are described. However, with zero annotations and zero required parameters, the description leaves the agent without any statement of the tool's safety profile or the behavior when both selectors are empty, which is a meaningful gap for a two-selector tool.

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 compensate, and it does document both parameters: id as the page identifier (explicitly preferred when both are supplied) and path as a slash-separated page path. The only gap is that it never explains the fallback when neither selector is provided.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('links for a page') and enumerates the three link categories returned (backlinks, outgoing, broken), which is more informative than a generic 'get links'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_page or list_page_revisions, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_page or lookup_path, and no stated preconditions or exclusions. The only routing hint is the parameter-level note that id is preferred when both selectors are supplied, which is parameter semantics rather than usage guidance.

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