get_issue_links

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds the meaningful fact that the tool has two operating modes (default list vs. paginated), which the annotations do not convey. It does not describe return shape, ordering, or what happens if an invalid link type is supplied.

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 compact sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the pagination note. The parenthetical link-type list is informative rather than padding.

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 definition should ideally say more about what the default (non-paginated) response looks like and whether pagination is required for large result sets. The dual-mode behavior is flagged but not fully explained, leaving a moderate gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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%, so each of the five parameters is already documented, including that fields and linkTypes only apply in paginated mode. The description echoes the pagination trigger but adds no syntax, defaults, or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List links of an issue') and enumerates the link categories returned, which is more than a restatement of the name. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the near-sibling get_entity_links or with create_issue_link/delete_issue_link, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 second sentence tells the agent that passing perPage/page switches to a paginated variant, which is a useful usage cue. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_entity_links, or when the paginated mode is actually warranted (e.g., large link counts).

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