get_entity_links

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's only real job is adding context — and it adds none: no pagination behavior, no indication of how many links may return, no distinction between link types. The claim "List" is consistent with the annotation, but nothing beyond annotations is disclosed.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is arguably under-specified rather than verbose, which is a completeness problem, not a structure problem.

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 simple read tool with annotations covering safety and a mostly-documented schema, this is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, the agent gets no hint about the shape of returned links or their volume, leaving a gap a list tool should close.

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 67%; the schema already documents entityType with an enum and fields with a comma-separated example. The description only restates the entity types ("project, portfolio or goal"), duplicating the enum rather than clarifying required entityId pairing or the fields syntax.

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?

States a specific verb ("List") and resource ("entity links") and scopes it to three entity types. It is distinguishable from sibling mutations like create_entity_link/delete_entity_link, though it never contrasts with the near-identical get_issue_links or get_external_links.

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 context, no prerequisites, no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the read counterpart to create_entity_link/delete_entity_link.

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