backlinks

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

Description only says 'List backlinks' without any behavioral details such as read-only nature, ordering, pagination, or performance implications. Since no annotations are provided, the description should cover this but fails to.

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 4-word sentence, which is efficient but overly terse. While it states the core action, it sacrifices necessary context for conciseness, resulting in a bare minimum structure.

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 6 parameters with no output schema and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits how to specify the target note, output format details, and the meaning of boolean flags (counts, total), leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage (only vault param documented in schema), the description adds no meaning to the 5 undocumented parameters (file, path, counts, total, format). It fails to compensate for the low coverage, making parameter usage unclear.

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?

Description states verb 'List' and resource 'backlinks to a note', clearly indicating the tool's function. The name 'backlinks' naturally distinguishes it from siblings like 'links' (likely outgoing links) and 'orphans' (unlinked notes), but the description does not explicitly differentiate.

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 over alternatives. The description lacks context about required inputs or whether it applies to current note or specified file, leaving the agent without direction for selection.

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