find_backlinks

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

No annotations provided; description carries burden. It discloses it returns only backlinks (no content) and is efficient. No contradictions, but lacks details on output format.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Purpose and efficiency are front-loaded. Perfectly concise.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, description is fairly complete: explains purpose, alternative, and benefit. Lacks specification of return format, but not critical.

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?

Only one parameter 'name' with complete schema description. Description adds that it's without .md extension, but schema already covers that. Baseline 3 for high 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 clearly states the tool returns backlinks of a note without loading content, using specific verb 'Devolver' and resource 'backlinks'. It also distinguishes itself from read_note.

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?

Explicitly compares to read_note, stating it's faster and more token-efficient when only backlinks are needed. However, does not mention other sibling tools like list_broken_links or search_notes.

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