get_backlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it specifies the output shape, notes the inverse-reference nature, and discloses the limitation 'Counts links found inside indexed docs only.' No contradictions with 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a use case and output format. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: what it returns, why it is useful, and its indexing limitation. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 the schema already documents both parameters (repo and doc_path). The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, but it does clarify the output and scope, which is sufficient given full schema coverage.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find all sections that link TO a given document (inverse reference graph).' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_related_sections or get_section_blast_radius by focusing on incoming references to a specific document.

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?

Provides a concrete use case: 'when a source changes, find which wiki pages reference it.' This gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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