backlinks

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 does not disclose that this is a read-only query, what the return format looks like, whether it requires a valid path, or any performance implications. The behavior is implied but not elaborated.

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, concise sentence with no filler. It is appropriately short for a simple query tool, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the output contains (e.g., list of paths, titles), how errors are handled, or whether the tool is read-only. An agent cannot fully anticipate the tool's behavior from this definition alone.

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%, and the description only vaguely refers to 'this one' to indicate the path parameter. It does not clarify the expected format, whether a path must be absolute, or give examples. Minimal added value beyond the schema's bare 'Path' title.

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 the tool returns notes that link to the given note via wikilinks, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It implies the 'path' parameter identifies the note, but it doesn't explicitly name it. It distinguishes from 'related_notes' by focusing on wikilink references, though the differentiation is not explicit.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'related_notes' or 'search_notes'. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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