template_usage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and mostly delivers: it declares read-only ('GET only'), namespace restriction, and that template redirects are resolved. It doesn't cover rate limits, failure modes, or pagination behavior beyond what the limit param implies, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the backlinks contrast, with zero filler. It is somewhat dense in the middle (three example use cases plus return-format description), but every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns, which it does: linked articles, a link to the template page, and a link to the full on-wiki transclusion list. Combined with the namespace and read-only statements, it is nearly complete, with only edge cases like missing templates unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents lang, limit, and template (including the 'Template:' prefix note). The description's added value is limited to confirming prefix-optionality and stating that redirects are resolved, which is marginal beyond the schema baseline.

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 verb+resource (lists articles that transclude a template) and clarifies scope with the colloquial gloss 'what embeds this template'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `backlinks` by contrasting transclusion vs plain wikilinks, so an agent can route correctly without opening schemas.

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?

Names the alternative (`backlinks`) and the exact condition that selects this tool over it ('which only sees plain wikilinks'). It also gives three concrete use cases (building research corpora, measuring navbox reach, auditing deprecated-template cleanup) and an explicit scope exclusion ('Article namespace only').

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