Get Page Backlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'Effect: read' and 'Human approval: not required for this read or staging action', which aligns with annotations. It also details failure handling (login_required, project_not_selected, etc.). This adds useful behavioral context beyond the structured 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?

The description is structured with clear sections ('Use when', 'Do not use when', 'Requires', etc.), making it easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the most critical usage guidance. However, it is somewhat verbose, repeating conditions like 'Requires' and 'Effect' that could be more terse. Still, it earns its space.

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?

Given that the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It covers purpose, usage conditions, effect, human approval, and failure modes. However, it does not explain what 'PageVersion backlinks' are or what 'typed destination' means, which might be context the agent needs. Overall, it is fairly complete for a read 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 description coverage is only 25% (only projectId has a description). The description does not elaborate on any parameter meanings; it only vaguely mentions 'typed destination' which relates to targetType but adds no specifics. Given the low coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent to infer parameter semantics from schema alone.

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 reads 'current or historical PageVersion backlinks for a typed destination in the selected project.' The verb 'read' and resource 'PageVersion backlinks' are specific, and the scope is delimited to a typed destination and selected project. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_wiki_page or explain_why_linked.

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 explicitly starts with 'Use when:' and 'Do not use when:', providing direct guidance on when to invoke this tool. It also lists requirements (authenticated API authority, selected project) and conditions for not using (narrower tool matches, unresolved scope, declined action). This is comprehensive and explicit.

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