getLinkedWorkItem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it returns data (read operation) but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, performance implications, or any side effects. The note about being 'same as Java API method' is vague and adds little value for an AI agent.

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 only two sentences, front-loading the main purpose and immediately clarifying exclusions. Every sentence contributes unique information with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite having 8 parameters (5 required, nested objects), the description is extremely minimal and does not explain parameter relationships, return value structure (no output schema), or usage constraints. The tool is complex, but the description fails to compensate, leaving significant gaps.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 8 parameters. The tool description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 explicitly states it returns direct outgoing links to other Work Items, clearly distinguishing from external links and backlinks. This specificity helps the agent understand the exact resource and scope, and differentiates it from sibling tools like getExternallyLinkedWorkItem and getLinkedWorkItems.

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?

The description implies when to use (retrieving direct outgoing links) and when not (for external or backlinks), but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites, alternatives, or context. It does not compare with getLinkedWorkItems (plural) or other similar tools, leaving the agent to infer usage boundaries.

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