List internal links

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral caveats: Wiki.js 'returns the whole graph at once and offers no filter, so on a large wiki this is truncated.' This warns the agent about incomplete results and the absence of filtering, which is valuable operational context.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the core behavior comes first, followed by the motivating use case, then the truncation caveat. Every sentence contributes distinct decision-relevant information.

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 single optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, why it is useful, and its main limitation. Combined with the schema's locale documentation, the agent has enough information to call this tool 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?

The only parameter, locale, already has a thorough schema description covering format, default, and meaning. The tool description merely repeats the 'one locale' concept, adding little beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Returns every page together with the internal links it contains,' identifying it as a link-graph tool for one locale. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pages or get_page, which do not describe page-to-page link relationships.

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 gives a clear use case: 'Useful for finding what would break before moving or deleting a page,' which tells an agent when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of full exclusion guidance.

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