Documents linking here

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds real value beyond that: it specifies that results include the line numbers where links occur and clarifies the link-resolution semantics (wikilink, alias, Markdown). It does not discuss limits, ordering, or whether unresolved links appear, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first defines the output precisely, the second gives the motivating scenario. Everything is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with read-only annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns (documents plus link line numbers) and why one would call it. Missing only edge-case behavior such as whether non-existent paths error or return empty results.

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% with a single required 'path' parameter already documented as relative to the documents root. The description adds no further parameter detail (e.g. absolute vs relative handling, trailing separators), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 resource (the documents that link to a given document) and enumerates exactly which link syntaxes count ([[wikilink]], alias, relative Markdown link), which no sibling does. An agent can distinguish it from ragdown_context or ragdown_read_doc immediately.

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?

Gives an explicit use case — 'find what depends on or refers to a document, e.g. before changing or superseding it' — which is genuine when-to-use context tied to a workflow. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or a when-not condition, so it is strong but not complete routing guidance.

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