Get backlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: empty list for unresolved targets, truncation semantics with 'truncated=true', and the note that 'returned is not a count'. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary use case, then covers resolution and truncation in a few dense sentences. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented elsewhere. The description covers the key behavioral nuances: unresolved targets, truncation, and limit semantics. It lacks explicit mention of sorting or ordering of results, but given the output schema and annotations, this is a minor gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'target' parameter's resolution semantics (ULID or alias via title -> filename -> aliases) and the 'limit' parameter's effect on truncation. However, it does not specify the exact format of the returned chunks or how 'truncated' is represented in the output, leaving some ambiguity.

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 purpose: find related context via backlinks, with a specific verb ('find') and resource ('chunks whose wikilinks point at the given target'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_text and get_note by focusing on wikilink-based relationships. The resolution order (title -> filename -> aliases) adds precision.

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 explains when to use it ('related context the user did not mention') and how the target is resolved, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately, but explicit exclusions are missing.

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