get_backlinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It makes the read-only, listing nature clear and restricts matches to [[wikilink]] references, but it does not disclose edge cases like missing notes, output format, or ordering.

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 communicates the exact behavior with zero filler. Every word earns its place, and the wikilink qualifier adds precision without bloat.

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 listing tool, the description is adequate: it names the resource, the filtering relationship, and the data type involved. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by the straightforward 'lists the notes' phrasing, though exact return formatting remains unspecified.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description does not add meaningful semantics beyond the path parameter. The 'given note' wording connects the parameter to the tool's purpose, but the schema already provides the necessary definition of path as a vault-relative path.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists'), a clear resource ('notes in the vault'), and a precise relationship ('reference the given note via [[wikilink]]'). This makes the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like list_notes or search_notes.

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 implies the use case: find inbound wikilink references to a specific note. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so an agent must infer contrast with siblings rather than being told.

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