suggest_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description redundantly states 'Read-only' but adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: dismissed suggestions are excluded, and the two missing-link categories are clarified. This extra context helps an agent understand the tool's persistent state and filtering behavior.

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 three sentences with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by usage context and behavioral nuance. Each sentence earns its place except for the redundant 'Read-only.' marker, which repeats an annotation.

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 zero-required-parameter tool with a full input schema and an output schema, the description is complete: it covers what the tool returns conceptually, when to use it, how to follow up, and important filtering behavior. The output schema handles return details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 `limit` and `doc_path` already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but the schema fully handles parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb ('List') and resource ('links the knowledge base is missing') and enumerates two concrete categories: documents that mention another document without linking, and links whose target does not exist. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_context and propose_update, which are about searching and modifying rather than surfacing missing links.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('when asked to tidy or connect the knowledge base') and names the follow-up tool ('fix the documents with propose_update'). This gives an agent an actionable decision rule and points to the correct sibling for the next step.

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