list_backlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value the annotations cannot: deprecation status, the callable window, and the scheduled removal version. It does not describe the return shape, but for a deprecated read tool that gap is minor.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded ahead of the deprecation notice. Every sentence earns its place.

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 small deprecated read tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is serviceable. The notable gap is that the two required parameters remain unexplained anywhere, leaving an agent to guess at vault/path semantics.

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% for two required parameters (vault, path), so the description must carry the burden and does not: 'a given note' never clarifies which parameter identifies the note, nor what vault/path formats are expected (relative path? absolute? docId?). Nothing here helps an agent fill the required fields.

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 with directional scope made explicit ('notes that link TO a given note'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling list_forward_links. An agent can select it 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?

Explicitly routes the agent away from the tool: 'DEPRECATED since v2.0.0 — prefer MCP Resource vault-memory://backlinks/{vault}/{+docId}', and gives the lifecycle window (callable through v2.x, removal in v3.0.0). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative guidance the dimension asks for.

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