get_links

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

The annotation already indicates readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by explaining that it shows both directions of connections. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral traits like pagination, error handling, or performance implications.

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: a one-liner purpose, a clarifying sentence, and a clean Args/Returns structure. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 presence of an output schema, the return description is sufficient. The tool's action is simple and well-explained. It covers parameters, behavior, and return type, leaving no major gaps for a read-only query tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining the memory_id parameter (UUID of the memory) and the relation parameter with example values (e.g., related, causes, supports). This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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 tool retrieves all links for a memory, specifying both incoming and outgoing connections. This verb+resource clarity is high, but it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like graph_edges or query_triples, which could also retrieve graph data.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., graph_edges, query_triples, link_memories). The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or when to avoid it.

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