get_backlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral detail that it scans the linkedPageIds field on all pages in the Collective, which hints at the potential cost and scope. This goes beyond the annotations and gives useful context about the underlying implementation.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Find pages that link to the given page') and then explains the mechanism. There is no redundant information or unnecessary detail, making it highly efficient.

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 integer parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough to understand the operation. It implies the return of a list of pages, though it doesn't explicitly describe the output format. The openWorldHint might suggest partial results, but that isn't addressed. Overall, it is adequate for an agent to call the tool 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 0%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. It indirectly refers to 'the given page' (pageId) and 'the Collective' (collectiveId), but doesn't explicitly state that collectiveId scopes the search and pageId identifies the target page. This is a partial compensation but not fully explicit, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 states the tool's function: finding pages that link to a given page. It specifies the mechanism (scanning linkedPageIds) and the scope (in the Collective), making it distinct from siblings like get_page or list_pages, which handle different page-related operations. No other sibling tool addresses backlinks, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever you need to identify incoming links to a specific page. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the unique functionality makes the usage context clear. It doesn't provide exclusions or alternative suggestions, but the purpose is self-explanatory enough for an agent to decide.

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