obsidian_backlinks

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

With no annotations provided, the description itself must convey behavioral traits. The verb 'Get' clearly implies a non-destructive read operation, and 'all files that link' indicates the scope of the result. However, it does not disclose edge-case behavior (e.g., nonexistent note) or output format details, leaving some burden unmet.

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 sentence with no extraneous words, directly stating the tool's purpose. It is well-structured and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema or annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It tells what the tool does but does not explain the return format or handle edge cases, which an agent might need to know. The completeness is fair but not exceptional.

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 100%, with the parameter 'file' described as 'File path to find backlinks for (relative to vault root)'. The description adds little beyond the schema—it repeats the concept of 'given note' without enriching parameter semantics. Per rubric, baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents the parameter well.

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 function: 'Get all files that link to a given note' uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('files that link to a given note'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like obsidian_search or obsidian_orphans. The name 'obsidian_backlinks' aligns perfectly with the description.

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 (finding backlinks for a note) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as obsidian_search or obsidian_orphans. It does not mention exclusions or provide context about prerequisites, but the single-sentence purpose is enough for a basic understanding.

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