get_remote_issue_links

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' and provides no information about return format, whether globalId filters the result, whether this is a collection operation, or what error/edge-case behavior exists. There is no behavioral information beyond the operation's name.

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 short, but this is under-pecification rather than genuine conciseness. It carries no information beyond the tool's name, so the single sentence does not earn its place.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at least clarify what is returned and how it differs from get_remote_issue_link_by_id. It does neither. The schema makes a bare call possible, but the description is not complete enough for confident tool selection and result interpretation.

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 both parameters clearly described. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the baseline of 3 applies because the input schema already explains issueIdOrKey and globalId adequately.

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, 'Get remote issue links', is essentially the tool's name de-underscored. It restates what the name already says without adding scope, object qualifiers, or a distinction from the sibling get_rem ote_issue_link_by_id. It is a tautology rather than an informative purpose statement.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The sibling list includes get_rem ote_issue_link_by_id, which likely serves the single-link case, but the description does not clarify which tool to choose or how they differ. An agent must guess 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.