get_issue_links

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

Annotations already declare the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description need not repeat safety traits. The description adds minimal behavioral context—only that all linked issues are returned for a specific issue—without detailing link directionality, supported link types, or any potential variability in results. This is adequate but not enriched beyond the annotations.

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 extremely compact: a single purpose sentence followed by a minimal argument list. Every line earns its place, with no filler, and the key information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 read-only tool with an output schema available, the description covers what is needed: the action, the target issue, and parameter semantics. It does not explain what kinds of linked issues are returned, but that is likely handled by the output schema, so the description remains reasonably complete.

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 takes on the responsibility of explaining parameters. It clearly states that issue_id can be an Issue ID or URL and marks instance as an optional YouTrack instance, adding meaning beyond the raw schema types.

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 opens with the specific action 'Get all linked issues for an issue', clearly identifying the verb, resource, and object. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_issue_link, remove_issue_link, and get_issue by focusing on the read-only retrieval of linked issues rather than modification or single-issue details.

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 does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_issue, search_issues, or add_issue_link. However, the tool name and brief purpose imply its use when linked issues are needed, so the usage context is inferred rather than clearly guided.

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