list_backlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that only Markdown notes are considered and links are Obsidian wiki links. However, it does not disclose return format, ordering, or edge cases (e.g., whether the target itself is included). With annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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, starts with the verb, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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 read-only tool with two string parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose. However, the missing parameter semantics and lack of usage alternatives make it slightly incomplete for an agent to fully understand how to invoke it correctly.

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% and the description does not explain the 'vault' and 'path' parameters. The phrase 'target note' hints that 'path' points to the note, but this is not explicit. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('Markdown notes'), and scopes the operation to those containing 'Obsidian wiki links to a target note'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools 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 backlinks for a target note) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It falls into 'implied usage' rather than explicit guidance.

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