get_page_backlinks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the result set ('all pages that link') but does not disclose potential behavior such as pagination, sorting, or whether only published pages are returned. This is adequate but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any wasted words. It is perfectly concise for a simple read operation.

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 low-complexity read tool with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the core behavior. However, it leaves some ambiguity about the return format (e.g., full page objects vs. IDs) and the optional changeRequestId parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 parameters (pageId, spaceId, changeRequestId) are already well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the action ('Get') and the resource ('all pages that link to a specific page'), and the parenthetical '(backlinks)' explicitly indicates incoming links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_page_links, which likely refer to outgoing links.

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 establishes clear context by defining the tool's scope ('all pages that link to a specific page'), implying when to use it (when you need incoming links). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to use get_page_links instead.

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