get_backlinks

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

The annotations already cover the read-only and non-destructive nature of the tool, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the functional behavior of returning linking notes, but it does not disclose extra behavioral details such as recursive resolution, self-link handling, or empty-result behavior. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single sentence with no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It front-loads the action and the object, making it immediately scannable for an agent.

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 tool with one required parameter and read-only annotations, the description is largely complete: it identifies the input's role and the general output concept. The lack of an output schema and explicit path syntax are minor gaps given the low complexity of the operation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'path' string parameter. It does add minimal meaning by indicating that path refers to the given note whose backlinks are sought, but it omits details like path format, relative vs absolute paths, and extension handling.

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 ('find') and a specific resource ('notes that link to a given note'), clearly identifying this as a backlink lookup. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_outlinks, which looks at outgoing links, and find_broken_links, which looks for missing targets.

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 implies when to use the tool: whenever you need inbound links for a note. However, it never explicitly contrasts this with get_outlinks, search, or find_broken_links, nor does it state when not to use it. This is implied usage rather than clear routing guidance.

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