list_ticket_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning return format, pagination, permissions, or any side effects. The read-only nature is implicit but not explicit.

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 concise sentence that clearly communicates the purpose without any extra fluff. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the core purpose and parameter meaning. However, it lacks any mention of return value or usage context, so it is not fully complete for an agent to invoke it correctly in all situations.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description's phrase 'd'un ticket' clarifies that ticket_id refers to the ticket whose links are listed. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, but it doesn't provide additional detail about the parameter's format or constraints.

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: it lists all links of a ticket with other tickets. The verb 'liste' and resource 'liens d'un ticket' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_ticket or link_tickets.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is for viewing existing links, nor does it contrast with link_tickets or any other sibling tool.

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