Get backlinks

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

The description significantly adds behavioral context beyond the annotations. It explains the target resolution order ('title -> filename -> aliases') and the empty list behavior for unresolved targets or no incoming links. This gives the agent a precise understanding of edge cases and resolution logic, which is valuable given the annotations only declare read-only safety.

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 four concise sentences, each earning its place. It is front-loaded with the primary use case, then provides technical resolution details, and ends with the edge-case empty list behavior. There is no fluff or repetition, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema (which negates the need to describe return values), the description covers the core aspects: use case, target resolution, and empty behavior. It does not explicitly address the limit parameter behavior, but that is a minor omission given the schema provides the default. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden for parameter semantics. It thoroughly explains the 'target' parameter, including acceptable formats (ULID or wikilink alias) and resolution precedence. The 'limit' parameter is not mentioned, but its meaning is conventional and its default (20) is in the schema. The description adds significant meaning for the key parameter, so a 4 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 identifies the tool's function: 'Return chunks whose wikilinks point at the given target.' It also adds a specific use case ('find related context the user did not mention') that distinguishes it from general search tools like search_text or search_regex. The verb 'Return' and resource 'chunks with wikilinks' make the purpose 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 opening phrase 'Use this to find related context the user did not mention' provides a clear scenario for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusion guidance. This earns a 4 for clear context without full differentiation.

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