jira_link_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states the return format (YAML with specific fields) and that both inward and outward links are included, which goes beyond a simple 'list links' description. It also references a CLI command for additional familiarity, but does not mention error handling or prerequisites.

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?

Two concise sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the action, and the second provides output format and CLI reference. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it states what it does, the direction scope, and the exact YAML fields returned. This effectively serves as an implicit output schema, so the description is self-contained for most usage.

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 input schema fully describes the single `key` parameter with an example, and the description does not add any additional parameter-specific information. The schema coverage is 100%, so no compensation is needed; 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 the specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'inward and outward links on a JIRA issue', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like jira_link_create, jira_link_remove, and jira_link_types. The scope 'inward and outward' adds precision.

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 clearly indicates this tool is for listing links on a JIRA issue, giving clear context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, though the name and sibling set (e.g., jira_link_create, jira_link_remove) imply those are for other operations.

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