get_entity_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does supply the key safety claim ('Read-only') plus the edge payload shape (from {type,id}, to {type,id}, direction label). It is silent on pagination, permission requirements, behavior when the entity has no links, and whether the direction label is derived or stored.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the direction taxonomy, then the edge shape and read-only flag. No marketing filler or repetition of the title.

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 description fully covers what the tool does, the direction model, and the return edge structure, so an agent can call it correctly without any additional documentation.

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 0% and none of the five parameters are named or explained. The description's incoming/outgoing discussion obliquely maps to include_incoming/include_outgoing, but never mentions the toggle semantics, the boolean defaults, or include_raw at all, and gives only a vague hint ('experiment or item') about valid entity_type values, which have no enum in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch directed link edges of a single eLabFTW experiment or item', and enumerates the concrete edge collections it reads (items_links/experiments_links vs related_*). The word 'single' plus 'directed link edges' implicitly separates it from network-walking siblings like expand_links_network.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'single experiment or item' scope bounds the tool, and the incoming/outgoing split tells the agent it can choose edge directions. But it never says when to prefer this over expand_links_network, ensure_link, or get_item, and gives no prerequisites (e.g. entity must exist, which entity_types are valid).

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