suggest_task_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the traversal mechanism (walks uses graph from anchors or existing links), the scoring approach (FTS against task description + notes), and the exclusion behavior (excludes already-linked refs). The configurable depth/top_k behavior is documented. Missing are return format details and whether this is read-only (implied 'propose' but not explicit), which with an output schema somewhat mitigates this.

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 densely informative paragraphs with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second paragraph walks through the algorithm in a single efficient run-on that conveys the full pipeline. Every sentence earns its place, no filler.

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 has moderate complexity (graph traversal, FTS scoring, multiple configurable params) and an output schema exists, relieving the description of return-value burden. The description covers the what/why/algorithm and key exclusions. Minor gap: no explicit statement of read-only behavior or expected performance/limitations, but given the output schema and thorough algorithm description, it's largely complete.

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 the schema documents all four parameters clearly (depth default 3, top_k default 10, anchors optional list falling back to existing links, task_slug required). The description adds context on how anchors interact with the traversal (None falls back to existing links) which the schema implies. Since the schema covers everything, baseline 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 clearly states the verb ('Propose candidate refs to link into a task') and resource, and immediately distinguishes from siblings like link_task and unlink_task by being a suggestion/recommendation tool rather than an actual mutation. The multi-step algorithm (walk uses graph, collect components, FTS-score, return top-K) gives a precise picture of the tool's purpose.

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 clearly explains when to use it (proposing candidate refs/link suggestions) and gives the mechanics across paragraphs. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, but the distinction from link_task/unlink_task (which mutate links directly) is implicitly clear. A named alternative would push this to 5.

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