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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the core operation (get backlinks) but does not add context such as whether the result includes note metadata, ordering, or behavior for missing paths. It is not misleading, but it is minimal for a tool with no annotation support.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that directly communicates the tool's purpose. There is no unnecessary verbosity or repetition, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 single-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does and what it returns (a list of notes). It does not specify the exact return format, but given the simplicity and lack of output schema, the description is sufficiently complete.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the only parameter ('path' is described as 'Path to the note'). The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, such as whether the path is relative or absolute, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all notes that link to a specific note'), and explicitly names the concept 'backlinks'. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_outlinks' (which returns outbound links) and 'get_link_graph' (which returns the full graph).

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 clearly conveys the usage context: use this when you need to find inbound links to a specific note. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance. The intent is clear, but no exclusions are stated.

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