List links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds only the filtering behavior and the fact that results carry both node names; it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result size, so the added behavioral value is modest.

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?

A single compact sentence with no filler, and the core scope statement leads. The compression costs some clarity ("lines between nodes"), which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description must characterize the return value and does mention that both node names are included, which is helpful. However, for a listing tool it omits ordering, pagination, and result-size behavior, leaving gaps in what the agent should expect back.

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% for the single `nodeId` parameter, so the description carries the full burden and does so reasonably: it states the parameter acts as a filter limiting results to links touching that node, and that omitting it returns all links. It does not specify the expected identifier format, but the optional-filter semantics are clear.

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 conveys the resource (connections/links between nodes) but never uses an explicit verb like "list" and substitutes the ambiguous metaphor "lines" for "links". It does distinguish the filtered and unfiltered modes via `nodeId` and mentions the returned node names, so an agent can infer the intent, but the phrasing is vague rather than a specific verb+resource 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?

It states that omitting `nodeId` returns all links and supplying it narrows to those touching that node, which is the only usage signal present. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over siblings such as `get_nodes`, `list_nodes`, or `search_nodes`, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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