List Backlinks

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint true, openWorldHint false), so the description is only required to add operational context beyond that. It does so with the version prerequisite 'Needs Docmost 0.90 or newer', which the agent cannot infer from annotations or schema. It says nothing about pagination or result shape, but an output schema covers that.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core resource definition. The first clause restates the direction enum, a slight duplication, but nothing else is wasted.

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?

With annotations covering safety, a full schema, and an output schema present, the description only needs purpose, trigger, and prerequisites, all of which it supplies. Missing only minor detail such as pagination expectations, which the cursor parameter already implies.

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 page, limit, cursor, and direction, including the enum meanings. The description only restates the direction semantics, adding no extra format or usage detail beyond 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?

The description states the exact resource and both directional modes ('Pages that link to this page (incoming), or that this page links to (outgoing)'), so an agent immediately knows what is returned. It does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from any sibling, because no sibling overlaps this function.

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?

'Use it before moving, renaming or trashing a page' gives a concrete trigger tied to specific sibling tools (move_page, rename_page, trash_page). It gives clear positive guidance but names no exclusions or alternative tools for other backlink-adjacent needs.

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