Get backlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral detail: results come from Obsidian's link index and match the backlinks pane exactly, including alias-written links. This clarifies data source and matching semantics beyond the annotations, so it adds value.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence states exactly what it does; the second adds a helpful detail about matching the backlinks pane and aliases. Zero waste and no repetition of schema or annotations.

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 read-only, single-parameter tool with open-world semantics, the description is sufficient. It explains the tool's output scope (incoming links), source (link index), and matching behavior (including aliases). Annotations cover safety, and the schema covers the parameter, so nothing essential is missing.

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 single parameter 'path' is fully documented in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description doesn't need to explain it. The description adds no extra param-specific meaning, but that's fine because the schema is complete. Baseline 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: returning notes that link to the given note. It uses a specific verb and resource, and implicitly distinguishes from sibling get_links (which likely handles outgoing links) by focusing on incoming links. The phrase 'Notes that link *to* this note' is 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?

It explains that the result matches Obsidian's backlinks pane exactly and includes aliases, giving context on when to trust its output. It does not explicitly contrast with get_links or state 'use when you need incoming links', but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer usage. A minor gap: no explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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