teamstorm_get_links

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds the non-recursive scope of retrieval, which is a meaningful behavioral trait not covered by annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, and the added context is relevant for agent decision-making.

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, focused sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action ('Retrieve') and immediately specifies the scope and the non-recursive behavior, making every word count.

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?

For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the operation and the parameter's purpose. It does not need to explain return values since an output schema exists. Minor gaps (e.g., precise meaning of 'directly related') do not impede correct usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It does so by indicating that task_key identifies the task whose direct links are retrieved, giving the parameter a clear role beyond its bare string type. It does not add format or constraints, but that is acceptable given the simplicity.

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 action (retrieve), the resource (directly related TeamStorm tasks), and a key distinguishing behavior (without recursively loading their links). This explicitly differentiates it from sibling tools like teamstorm_get_task_context or teamstorm_get_task, making its purpose 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 gives clear context that this tool returns only direct links, implying that recursive link retrieval is not handled. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of fully explicit usage guidance.

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