list_backlinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It mentions the output is JSON (already implied by output schema) and the effect of the 'counts' parameter, but does not explain what happens when both 'file' and 'path' are provided, error conditions, or any required permissions.

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 very short (two sentences) with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose and a key parameter option. However, it could be slightly expanded to cover common parameter combinations without losing conciseness.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for all three parameters. It omits explanations for 'file' and 'path', which are critical for correct invocation. The lack of error handling or default behavior notes makes it 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%, so the description must compensate. It only explains the 'counts' parameter ('adds link counts'). The 'file' and 'path' parameters have no explanation in either the schema or the description, leaving their semantics ambiguous.

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 action ('list') and resource ('backlinks' as notes linking to a target note). It specifies the output format (JSON). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_files or list_tags.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as note_info or search_vault. No mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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