get_backlinks_tool

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does state the core operation ('Return all notes that link to the given note') and the response shape ('data.items is a list of note paths'), which adds useful context about output. However, it does not explain the meaning of 'alias-aware' in terms of how aliases are resolved, nor does it mention error handling, ordering, or scope (e.g., whether it searches across all vaults or only the specified vault). This is a moderate level of transparency, adequate for a simple read operation but lacking depth.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences. The first sentence states the primary action and the second adds a minimal but helpful output detail. There is no redundant phrasing, no fluff, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool itself is simple, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values in detail. However, the complete lack of parameter documentation (0% coverage) and the absence of annotations place a higher burden on the description to cover usage context. The description explains the main purpose and one output field, but it does not clarify the 'vault' parameter, alias behavior, or edge cases. This is adequate for a straightforward tool but not fully complete given the missing structured metadata.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. The phrase 'the given note' implies that 'path' identifies the note whose backlinks are returned, but it does not explicitly name 'path' or clarify the expected format (e.g., file path vs note ID). The 'vault' parameter is not mentioned at all in the description, leaving its purpose and default behavior entirely undocumented. This is a significant gap because the agent cannot infer whether 'vault' is required or how it affects the search.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and a precise resource ('all notes that link to the given note'), making it immediately distinct from sibling tools like list_notes_tool, read_note_tool, and search_notes_tool. The 'alias-aware' qualifier adds further differentiation by hinting at a special handling of aliases, which is not present in other list/read tools. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose without needing to inspect 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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer get_backlinks_tool over get_link_graph_tool or get_broken_links_tool, nor does it state any exclusions or fallback conditions. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and the brief description, which is not sufficient for an agent deciding among many similar note-related tools.

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