suggest_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the scoring formula (score>0, tags×3 + words×1), that the list is symmetric, and that it returns markdown snippets. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, any rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is adequate but could be more explicit about behavioral aspects.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that pack significant information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and follows with details on scoring and usage. No redundant information.

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 complexity of the tool, no output schema, and 4 parameters with low schema coverage, the description provides a solid understanding of the tool's functionality, scoring, and dual usage. It lacks details on return format and error handling, but overall it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the 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 low (25%), with only topN having a description. The tool description does not add meaning for the parameters slug, site, or saveToFile beyond what is in the schema. It mentions slug in the context of snippet formatting but not as a parameter. The description compensates partially by explaining the overall purpose but not individual parameters.

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 states the tool's purpose: interlinking for one article, with scoring and markdown snippets. It specifies the verb 'перелинковка' (interlinking), resource 'одна статья' (one article), and distinguishes from siblings like audit_orphans by focusing on thematic closeness.

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 provides usage context: the tool is used both to find target articles (to link from the current article) and donor articles (to add a link to the current article into their bodies). It also references update_article for adding links. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternative tools.

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