Backlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds a non-obvious behavioral rule not in annotations: dangling/unresolved references are excluded from the backlink set, which changes what the agent can conclude from an empty result.

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 core definition is front-loaded in one sentence, the disambiguating caveat about resolved links follows, and parameters are listed compactly. Every element earns its place; nothing is repeated from the schema verbatim except the default value, which is paired with new cap information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value shape need not be described, and annotations cover the read-only semantics. For a two-parameter read tool, the definition supplies purpose, usage context, resolution caveat, and parameter constraints — nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% (bare titles "Path" and "Limit"), so the description carries the burden and largely meets it: `path` is qualified as vault-relative with a concrete example, and `limit` documents both the default 50 and a hard cap of 500 that the schema omits. It stops short of saying whether the `.md` extension is mandatory or what happens if the path does not resolve.

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?

States a specific verb+resource relationship ("Notes that link TO `path`") with the directional word emphasized in caps, which is exactly what separates it from the outgoing-link sibling get_links. The following sentence adds concrete instances (projects citing a card, daily notes mentioning a person), so an agent knows precisely what is returned without opening the schema.

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?

"Use this to discover what references a given note" gives clear usage context plus illustrative examples. However, it never names alternatives such as get_links (outgoing), get_neighborhood, or find_related, so the agent must infer when to pick those instead.

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