LightCMS

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

Adds valuable indexing mechanics beyond annotations: explains links are 'tracked automatically whenever a page is published' (data freshness constraint) and specifies both [[Wikilinks]] and ordinary <a href> links are indexed (scope completeness). No contradiction with readOnlyHint:true.

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 tight paragraphs: mechanism (link tracking types), use cases (three scenarios), example (JSON). Front-loaded with core action. Every sentence delivers unique information; zero 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?

No output schema exists, but description compensates by stating tool 'returns every published page whose content contains a link to /about', clarifying return type (pages) and scope. Lacks detail on pagination or field selection, but adequate for simple read-only tool with good annotations.

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 has 100% description coverage ('URL path to find backlinks for (e.g. /about)'), so baseline applies. Description provides JSON example {'path': '/about'} but primarily illustrates return behavior rather than adding parameter constraints, formats, or validation rules not in schema.

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?

Opens with specific verb 'Find' + resource 'published pages' + relationship 'that link to given URL path'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling get_content (returns page content) and search_content (full-text search) by focusing specifically on backlink relationships.

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?

Lists three concrete use cases: 'discover which pages reference a given page (wiki-style backlink graph)', 'assess the impact of deleting or renaming a page', and 'find orphaned pages'. Provides clear when-to-use context, though lacks explicit 'when not to use' or named alternatives.

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