obsidian_get_backlinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no result ordering, no handling of unresolved/ambiguous targets, no permission or vault-scope requirements, and no indication of what a result entry looks like. Only the read-only nature is inferable from 'Lists'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of why other dimensions are thin.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is the minimum viable: it tells the agent what it returns but not the result shape, path format, or how to disambiguate among the crowded link-related siblings.

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% for the single required 'path' parameter, so the description must compensate. Saying the path refers to 'a target note' does clarify that the argument identifies the note whose backlinks are wanted, but it omits format details (vault-relative vs. absolute, whether an extension is expected).

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?

States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (incoming links) plus the scope (a target note). 'Incoming' implicitly distinguishes it from obsidian_get_links, but the description never names or contrasts with the many link-related siblings (get_links, get_orphans, get_unresolved_links, get_deadends), so an agent must infer the boundary.

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 only implied: an agent can infer it should call this to find what links to a note, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no routing to the sibling tools that cover outgoing links or orphans.

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