get_backlinks_fs_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses filesystem access, scanning of all markdown files, and performance estimates. It does not mention error handling or limitations (e.g., only wikilinks), but overall provides good behavioral context.

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 well-structured with sections for purpose, explanation, usage, performance, and returns. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and every sentence adds value without 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?

No output schema is provided, so the description must clarify return values. It states 'returns all notes containing wikilinks with context', but 'context' is vague (e.g., surrounding lines?). It also lacks details on error cases (e.g., note not found) or response structure, leaving some gaps for a data-returning tool.

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 67% (two of three params have descriptions). The description adds little beyond the schema: it mentions note_name as 'target note' and vault_path as optional with env fallback, but does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints.

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 action ('Find all notes that link to a specified note') and the resource (filesystem-native backlinks). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing 'no Obsidian required' and 'direct filesystem access', which differentiates it from get_backlinks_tool.

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 'When to use' bullet points provide clear scenarios (e.g., building connection graphs, high-performance discovery). However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or mention the alternative get_backlinks_tool for comparison.

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