get_backlinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the search spans the entire vault and looks for [[note]] references, which is useful. However, it does not mention return format, exact match behavior, or handling of non-existent notes. It adds some context but not rich 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 two sentences, immediately conveys the core action, and adds the vault-wide scope. No redundant or vague wording; every clause contributes useful information.

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 read-only search tool, the description covers purpose and scope adequately. However, since there is no output schema, a brief statement about the return value (e.g., list of note paths) would improve completeness. The tool's simplicity and clear sibling context prevent a lower score.

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 100%, with both path and includeContext already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 link to a specific note (backlinks)' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds scope ('Searches the entire vault') and the syntax ([[note]] references), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_outgoing_links.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit. The description says what the tool does but does not state when to choose it over alternatives, such as get_outgoing_links, nor does it provide exclusion criteria. The reader must infer use cases from the name and description.

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