get_backlinks

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the transparency burden. It does well by explaining that it returns explicit backlink edges (as opposed to semantic similarity), the scope ('vault has decided this note is load-bearing'), and the effect of include_outbound. It doesn't explicitly state it's read-only, but that's implied and not contradicted. Overall, it discloses the core behavior effectively.

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 bit longer than strictly necessary but every sentence contributes: purpose, differentiation, use cases, and optional parameter. It is well-structured with the core question first, followed by context and usage guidance. No redundant or filler content, though it could be tightened slightly.

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, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (backlinks, with optional outbound links). It covers the key distinctions from siblings and includes essential usage context. However, it doesn't mention potential edge cases (e.g., behavior for nonexistent note paths) but this is minor for a read-only 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters thoroughly (note_path with an example, include_outbound with default). The description adds marginal value by explaining the purpose of the result but doesn't add new parameter-level detail. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is 100%.

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 opens with a crystal-clear statement: 'Which notes explicitly link TO this one.' It names the specific resource (notes) and the action (listing backlinks), and explicitly contrasts with semantic search and sibling tools like get_similar_notes and get_connection_graph, making its unique purpose unambiguous.

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 the tool: 'Use it to judge how important a note is, to find every place a decision is cited before changing it, and to trace how a concept actually gets used.' It also distinguishes it from semantic search, providing clear exclusions. The optional include_outbound behavior is mentioned, which helps decide between this and related graph tools.

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