obsidian_find_backlinks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic functionality without disclosing important behaviors like error handling (e.g., what if note_path doesn't exist), scope (e.g., does it search all vaults or just the given vault?), or performance characteristics.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. The 'Args' and 'Returns' sections are clear, though the format could be slightly more streamlined. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and return type, which is adequate for a simple tool. However, given the lack of annotations and the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description could be more complete by mentioning edge cases, pagination, or performance.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description adds meaning for both parameters: 'vault' is explained as 'Name or path of the vault' and 'note_path' as 'Path to the target note (without .md extension).' This partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though the vault explanation is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Find all notes that link to a specific note.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the sibling tools (e.g., obsidian_find_notes_by_tag, obsidian_search_notes) show this is distinct for backlinks.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like obsidian_search_notes or obsidian_find_notes_by_tag. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it.

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