get_backlinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that only resolved links are counted and mentions the default limit and hard cap. However, it does not specify permissions, rate limits, or that the tool is read-only (though implied). The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with two short paragraphs and bullet points for arguments. The purpose is stated first, followed by a key behavioral note, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 (2 params, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral trait, and parameter details. It could mention sorting or ordering of results, but overall it is complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains 'path' as a vault-relative path with an example, and for 'limit' it adds the hard cap of 500 (not in schema). This goes beyond the schema's bare type information and is helpful for correct invocation.

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 'Notes that link TO path' with a specific verb and resource, and provides concrete examples like 'projects citing a card, daily notes mentioning a person'. This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_links (links from a note) and get_neighborhood (bidirectional).

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 says 'Use this to discover what references a given note' and gives usage examples, making the context clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use or suggest alternative tools (e.g., get_links for outgoing links), which would be helpful given the number of sibling tools.

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