Backlinks

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating lookup, so the description's safety burden is low. It adds the useful detail of which link syntaxes are counted, but says nothing about result ordering, whether it returns bare page names or link contexts, or that system pages are skipped by default — the latter only appears in the schema.

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?

A single sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. Every clause carries information, including the specification of acceptable link formats.

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-only lookup with full schema documentation, this is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not indicate the shape of the result (list of page names vs. matching snippets), which an agent would need to plan follow-up calls.

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 both 'name' and 'include_system' documented including the system page prefixes excluded. The description adds nothing about parameter behavior — e.g. whether a path or bare name is accepted, or what links outside those prefixes look like — so 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('pages that link to the given page'), and even narrows the link kinds covered ('[[wiki links]] or relative markdown links'). That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from read_page or search, but no sibling tool is named or explicitly excluded, so it stops short of a 5.

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 when-to-use case is only implied: an agent can infer it is the tool for reverse-link discovery. There is no statement about when not to use it, no mention of an alternative such as search, and no note that the page must already exist.

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