get_linked_pages

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses that the curated field is gone, that links are extracted from /page/<slug> markdown links, and that results are ranked by mention frequency then first position. This gives the agent insight into the underlying logic and expected ordering.

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 exactly two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence provides necessary context about the data source and ranking. Every word earns its place; it is compact and immediately scannable.

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 presence of an output schema, the description need not enumerate return values. It explains the key non-obvious aspects: how links are derived, that there is no curated field anymore, and the ranking order. This is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. The only minor gap is that it does not explicitly mention pagination or limit behavior, but the schema covers that.

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% for both parameters (slug and limit), including a default and min/max for limit. The description does not add parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, but it does add context about the ranking behavior that affects how the limit is applied. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Get pages that are linked from the specified article.' It goes on to explain the derivation mechanism (markdown links) and ranking, which distinguishes this from siblings like get_page_content or get_page_citations. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool does and why the linked pages are derived, but it never states when to use this tool over the sibling tools (e.g., search, get_page_citations). There is no explicit 'use this when you need...' or 'instead of X, use this.' The usage context is only implied by the name and description, not explicit.

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