get_backlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: zero backlinks means the object is orphaned, and backlinks imply dangling references on delete, plus the 'grouped by type' shape of the result. It is not a rich disclosure (no pagination/volume caveats), but it materially exceeds the annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, with usage scenarios in a compact second block. Every sentence earns its place, though 'The right way to ask' is slightly discursive padding.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage scenarios, the deletion-safety implication, and hints at the grouped return shape. Only minor gaps remain, such as result volume or how orphaned objects are represented.

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 ref and object_type are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List everything that references this object') and adds the grouping dimension ('grouped by type'), which no sibling tool provides. An agent can distinguish it from get_object or cite_object without opening the schema.

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?

It gives concrete invocation contexts ('is this source actually cited?', 'which facts rest on this citation?', 'is it safe to delete this?'), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It never names an alternative tool or states when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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