list_work_package_wiki_links

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses a known server bug producing [server_error] in specific no-visible-link cases, the [not_found] behavior on older servers, and exactly what is returned (identifier, provider, author — never page title or text). That is exactly the kind of trap-avoidance context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then layers version, bug and permission caveats efficiently. The bug paragraph is long but each clause carries distinct failure-mode information, so little is wasted.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the returned fields and pagination-relevant params live in the schema. With annotations covering safety, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret failures.

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 limit, offset and work_package_id all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing further about parameters, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List wiki pages linked to a work package'), immediately distinguishing it from siblings like get_wiki_page or create_work_package_wiki_link. The scope is unambiguous from the first sentence alone.

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?

Supply useful context on prerequisites (OpenProject 17.5+) and the permission model (only the work package is checked against OPENPROJECT_READ_PROJECTS), which tells an agent when the call will succeed. It stops short of naming when to prefer a sibling such as get_wiki_page for reading page content.

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