get_backlinks

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that trashed notes are excluded, which is behavioral context not in annotations. It also clarifies the two types of links, providing clarity beyond structured fields.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without any unnecessary words. It balances brevity and information.

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?

Given the simple tool (single required parameter, no output schema, read-only), the description covers the graph output but fails to document the input parameter. No return format is specified, but annotations reduce the need for that.

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% with no description for the 'id' parameter. The description does not explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., note ID) or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without guidance on filling the required parameter.

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 retrieves backlinks (notes linking to the note) and links_to (notes it links to) for a given note using Bear's wiki-link feature. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like read_note or search_notes by specifying the graph context.

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 it (for exploring wiki-link connections) but offers no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it differs from alternatives like search_notes. The sibling tools are listed without comparison.

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