get_issue_links

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Get all linked issues', which implies a read operation but omits details like whether links include both inbound and outbound, pagination behavior, or any limitations. The description is minimal, providing little behavioral context.

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 very short, consisting of one sentence and a parameter list. It front-loads the purpose clearly. While extremely concise, it avoids unnecessary verbosity, earning a high score for efficiency, though the parameter list could be better formatted.

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 simple nature of the tool (2 parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose and parameters. It lacks information about the type of links returned (e.g., outgoing vs. incoming) but is otherwise adequate for a basic retrieval tool.

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 0% (no descriptions in the JSON schema). The description adds basic meaning: 'issue_id' is an 'Issue ID or URL', and 'instance' is 'YouTrack instance (optional)'. This provides some value beyond the schema's title and type, but it is not detailed (e.g., no format hints for instance, no indication of accepted URL patterns).

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 ('Get all linked issues') and the resource ('issue'), distinguishing it from siblings like add_issue_link and remove_issue_link. The verb 'Get' combined with 'all linked issues' is specific and 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_issue, search_issues). There is no explicit context about prerequisites, such as requiring a valid issue ID, or when not to use it.

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