getBacklinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: the document body is deliberately excluded, so only edges are returned. It also explains the semantics of each returned field, though it says nothing about permissions, dangling/unresolved links, or ordering.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it returns, why it's useful, and how to identify the target. The scope qualifier and payoff are front-loaded, and no sentence is filler.

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 two-parameter, fully documented read tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and identification well. Remaining gaps (link resolution behavior, whether backlinks include entity references, permissions) are minor but not trivial for graph tooling.

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 100% and the schema itself already states the exactly-one constraint between path and documentUid. The description's final sentence repeats that same rule without adding format or resolution guidance, so it merely matches structured data rather than exceeding it.

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 and resource ('List a document's wikilink edges') and enumerates the two edge categories returned (backlinks, links). The clause 'without its body' distinguishes it from readDocument/get, and 'the graph' framing separates it from the entity-oriented relations/neighbors tools.

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 fast way to map a note's place in the graph' gives clear context for when to reach for it versus the heavier document readers. It does not name an explicit alternative or state exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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