vault_backlinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It clearly states the read-only nature ('Find all notes') and the specific mechanism (wikilink matching), which is accurate and non-misleading. However, it does not disclose potential edge cases such as path resolution, case sensitivity, or whether the operation is safe (though 'find' implies no side effects). Given no annotations, the description adds a bit of context beyond the tool name but lacks rich behavioral detail.

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 exceptionally concise: two sentences total, front-loaded with the main purpose. The 'Args:' block is directly relevant and adds necessary parameter context. There is zero wasted wording; every element earns its place.

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 tool with one required parameter, an output schema, and a clear description, the tool definition is largely complete. Since the output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers what the tool does and what the parameter means, but could briefly mention potential use cases or limitations for full completeness given the family of sibling tools.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage—the 'path' property is only defined by its type. The description compensates with an explicit 'Args:' section stating 'path: Target note path.' This adds clear semantic meaning about the parameter's role. For a single-parameter tool, this is sufficient, though it could specify path format (e.g., absolute vs relative) for extra clarity.

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: 'Find all notes that contain a [[wikilink]] to the given path.' This specifies a concrete verb ('find'), a resource ('notes with wikilinks'), and a target ('given path'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like vault_search by focusing specifically on backlink wikilinks rather than general search.

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 usage context is implied by the tool's name and description: use it to discover inbound wikilinks for a given note path. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over vault_search or vault_read, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternatives. The 'when to use' is left to the agent's inference.

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