get-page-links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the directional behavior (outgoing vs. backlinks) and the return content (titles and namespaces). While it omits pagination details, the schema's continue_from parameter implies handling that is not fully explained, but the core read-only nature is evident from 'Get' and 'find'.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and gracefully includes the direction logic and return value. No wasted words.

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 is relatively simple with a detailed schema and no output schema. The description covers the primary function and return values, but lacks explicit pagination guidance or the exact structure of results. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, it is slightly incomplete but adequate for most use cases.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, mostly reinforcing the direction semantics and return output. It does not elaborate on wiki, limit, or continue_from beyond what the schema already states.

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 identifies the tool's function: retrieving outgoing links (direction="from") or backlinks (direction="to"). It specifies the resource (page) and the output (link titles and namespaces), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get-page or search-page.

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 the two operational modes with clear direction parameters, telling the user when to use 'from' versus 'to'. It does not explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools, but the context is clear enough that no exclusions are needed.

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