Find Obsidian backlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces with 'It never edits the graph.' It adds behavioral detail on matching (note names, paths, aliases, heading anchors) which is not in annotations. No contradiction; the description adds context beyond 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?

Two compact paragraphs. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by usage, matching capabilities, and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema exists (covering return format), annotations cover read-only, and the description covers purpose, usage, matching, and behavior, nothing essential is missing for an agent to call this correctly. The tool is simple and fully documented.

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 coverage is high (75%+), so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning for relative_path by stating matching supports aliases and heading anchors, implying the parameter can accept more than just a path. This clarifies parameter usage beyond schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Find notes that link to a target through Obsidian [[wikilinks]]'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings (read, search, list, stats) by focusing on backlinks and even mentions matching capabilities (aliases, heading anchors) which differentiate it further.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use after reading a note to discover related decisions, meetings, or follow-up pages.' It implies a workflow but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use, though the distinct purpose makes it unambiguous.

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