List Issue Links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read nature is clear. But the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., pagination, ordering, or what constitutes a 'related' link). The description does not contradict annotations.

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 extremely concise (one sentence) but at the expense of completeness. It lacks structure and does not earn its brevity because it fails to provide necessary details about parameters or behavior.

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 absence of output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what is returned, how to interpret results, or how to use parameters 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 does not mention either parameter (issue_iid or project_id) nor explain their meaning or usage. The agent must infer from the name alone, which is insufficient.

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 the verb 'list' and the resource 'issue links', and the word 'related' implies links that are associated with the issue. It distinguishes from siblings like gitlab_get_issue_link (single) and gitlab_create_issue_link (create). However, it could be more explicit about what 'related' means.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as gitlab_get_issue_link or gitlab_list_issue_discussions. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.

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