brain-mcp

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds useful context beyond this by specifying the mechanism ('via [[wikilinks]]') and the scope ('across the vault'), which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior without contradicting annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage examples, and ends with clear sections for Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter), rich annotations, and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Returns' section), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and returns adequately, leaving no significant gaps for the agent to operate effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by explaining that the parameter is the 'Title of the note to find backlinks for' and clarifies the return value as a 'JSON list of notes that contain [[title]] wikilinks,' which provides essential context not in the schema. However, it does not detail parameter constraints like 'minLength: 1' from the schema.

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 specific action ('Find all notes that link to a given note via [[wikilinks]]') and resource ('notes'), distinguishing it from siblings like brain_search_notes or brain_list_notes by focusing on backlink relationships rather than general search or listing. The purpose is precise and 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 provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Useful for understanding how a note is referenced across the vault, checking if a note is properly linked from MOCs, or mapping relationships between concepts'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings. This gives good guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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