get_backlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description 'List incoming or outgoing page links' is consistent with these and adds minimal behavioral context. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not disclose details like pagination behavior or response structure beyond what the schema already implies.

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 a single five-word sentence that starts with the verb and resource. There is no fluff, filler, or redundancy. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it an exceptionally concise and well-structured definition.

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?

The tool is simple, and the schema + annotations cover parameters and safety profile. However, with no output schema, the description does not describe what the returned link objects contain, nor does it mention pagination explicitly. The cursor parameter referencing 'meta.nextCursor' hints at the response shape, but the description itself is minimal.

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 all four parameters (page_id, direction, limit, cursor) are already documented. The description adds little semantic value beyond restating the direction concept that the enum already captures. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the load.

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 uses a specific verb, 'List', and identifies the resource as 'incoming or outgoing page links'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page, get_page_history, and get_breadcrumbs, which focus on content, history, or navigation context rather than links.

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?

There is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage context is implied by the name and phrase 'page links'—an agent can infer it is for retrieving link relationships—but no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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