links_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns links where the given entity appears as either entityA or entityB, a key behavioral trait. It does not mention pagination or side effects, but for a read operation the behavioral info is sufficient.

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 at 5 sentences, with a clear structure: purpose, tag, behavioral explanation, example, and response detail. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no fluff.

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 no output schema, the description should explain the return structure more thoroughly. It states 'returns all entities linked to the given entity' and mentions entityA/entityB, but does not specify fields or format of the response. Adequate but incomplete for a complete understanding.

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 covers 50% of parameters. The description adds meaning by providing a usage example ('Pass entityType=bug and entityId as the ID of the open bug') and explaining how the parameters relate to the bidirectional response. This goes beyond the schema's enum description.

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 'List links for an entity' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself by explaining it returns all linked entities regardless of side. It is unambiguous and differentiates from sibling tools like links_create or links_delete.

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 a concrete example use case ('A user opens a bug...') and explains the bidirectional nature. It does not explicitly exclude scenarios or mention alternatives, but the example gives clear guidance on when to use.

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