spec_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well: it declares 'Read-only', explains that results are paged via limit/offset, preserves standards URLs and file:line evidence, and clarifies the recorded-source behavior. This goes well beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 three sentences with no filler, front-loaded with 'Read-only' and the primary action. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, paging behavior, and the recorded-source caveat.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly: it states what the tool returns, how pagination works, what the input symbol means, and in which context it is useful. The parameter schema covers the remaining invocation details.

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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, offset, format, and symbol. The description reinforces that limit/offset control paging and that symbol can be a name or node id, but it does not add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Link a symbol to its documentation and source comments' and explains the concrete goal of recovering 'the spec/standard a function implements.' It distinguishes itself from graph-focused siblings like points_to and callers by emphasizing documentation/comment references and file:line evidence.

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?

It gives clear context on when to use the tool: 'Use it to recover the spec/standard a function implements' and adds a useful condition — it reads recorded source so it works even when comments are outside the production graph. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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