get_document_backlinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action 'Find' but doesn't describe what 'Find' entails—e.g., whether it returns a list, the format of backlinks, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap, as it omits key behavioral details needed for reliable use.

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, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's function without fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data (e.g., a list of backlinks). It doesn't explain return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances. For a read operation with potential complexity, this leaves critical gaps, scoring a 2 as it provides only basic purpose without supporting context.

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?

The description implies a 'documentId' parameter by referring to 'this document', but it doesn't add meaning beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage and 1 parameter, the baseline is 3 because the schema alone defines the parameter. The description doesn't compensate with details like ID format or validation, so it meets the minimum viable level without adding value.

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 clearly states the verb 'Find' and the resource 'other documents linking to this document', making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_document' (which retrieves content) or 'find_related' (which might use different logic), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, warranting a 4.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid documentId), exclusions (e.g., not for archived documents), or comparisons to siblings like 'find_related' or 'get_document'. Without any usage context, it's minimally functional but leaves the agent to guess, scoring a 2.

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