list_work_item_links

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only gives the verb 'List' with no disclosure of pagination, ordering, filtering, permissions, or rate limits. The Returns line about WorkItemLink objects is minimal and does not compensate for the lack of behavioral detail.

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 appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence is necessary and there is no wasted text.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description leaves the `params` parameter as an unexplained black box. Without annotations, the tool's behavioral profile is thin, and the description does not address potential filtering, pagination, or relationship to other link/relation tools, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke correctly.

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. It provides one-line definitions for each parameter ('UUID of the project', 'UUID of the work item', 'Optional query parameters as a dictionary'), which adds basic meaning. However, the `params` parameter is vague and does not specify allowed filters or options, leaving a clear gap.

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 it 'List links for a work item' with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from the closely named sibling tool `list_work_item_relations`, which may be a similar operation, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 like `list_work_item_relations` or `retrieve_work_item_link`. No context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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