backlinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context: outbound links are returned 'with resolution' and frontmatter links count as real references (with a concrete example). That is genuinely non-obvious. But it says nothing about pagination/limiting behavior or the cost of the operation.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with the core purpose stated first and a clarifying edge-case note second. Minimal waste, though the second sentence is a somewhat disjoint detail.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Given no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the definition still leaves the `k` parameter, pagination, and when-to-use-versus-siblings unaddressed, making it adequate but incomplete.

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 there are 2 parameters. The description never mentions `k` (the result limit) or clarifies `file_path`; only 'this note' loosely implies the target. With zero coverage in the schema, the description should compensate but does not.

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 a specific purpose: it returns inbound links (who links to this note) and outbound links (where the note points). This clearly distinguishes it as a link-relationship tool versus a content reader. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely-related siblings like broken_links, find_related, or graph_overview.

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 clarifies scope and what the tool returns, so usage is implied, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives among the many link/graph-related siblings (broken_links, find_related, graph_overview). The agent must infer when this is preferable.

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