vault_get_backlinks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does convey that the operation is read-only via 'Retrieves' and signals the inclusion of 'local context around each link,' but it does not disclose any potential costs, limitations, or how the backlink graph is traversed. This is adequate but not rich.

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 core action and immediately conveys the tool's purpose and return value. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy.

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 simple read-only nature and a fully self-describing schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the return content (all linking notes plus local context), which is sufficient for most use cases. However, because there is no output schema, it could have mentioned the available response_format (text/json) to clarify expected output variants.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only refers to a generic 'specified note' and 'local context,' which does not enhance understanding of path, vault_name, or response_format.

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 a specific action ('Retrieves all notes that link to a specified note') and resource, with the parenthetical '(incoming links/backlinks)' reinforcing the exact scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_get_related or vault_follow_link, which address different relationship types.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vault_search or vault_get_related. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the description's focus on backlinks, but the description does not state exclusions or mention any sibling tools.

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