related

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it usefully discloses that the result includes both outgoing and incoming links, implying a read-only lookup. However, it does not describe the output format, pagination, error behavior, or how the two link directions are represented.

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 a single compact sentence with no filler. The core resource 'related pages' is front-loaded and the parenthetical detail about outgoing and incoming links adds meaningful scope without waste.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves the return structure and behavior largely to inference. An agent still does not know whether the result is a list of page IDs, page objects, or a structured link map, and there is no disambiguation from hierarchy.

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 schema already documents the single id parameter with 100% coverage. The description's 'по id' merely confirms the parameter usage and adds no format, interpretation, or value constraints beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies the resource: related pages, and specifies the scope: outgoing and incoming links, keyed by id. This distinguishes it from siblings like search and get_page, though it lacks an explicit verb and does not explicitly contrast with hierarchy.

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 usage guidance is provided: there is no mention of when to use this tool instead of search, get_page, or hierarchy, and no exclusions or prerequisites are given. The intended use can be inferred from the noun phrase, but the tool does not state it.

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