Get Note Backlinks

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the return structure (note and backlinks array) which is useful because there is no output schema. It also clarifies the link direction ('link TO this note'), going beyond 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 concise: three sentences and a minimal return example. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds the return format without unnecessary detail.

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 simple read-only tool with complete schema documentation and safety annotations, the description sufficiently explains the operation and return values. The explicit 'link TO this note' disambiguation from sibling tools adds contextual completeness.

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 100%, with both path and response_format clearly described. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 3 is warranted.

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 'Get backlinks to a specific note (notes that link TO this note).' This uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes the direction of links from the sibling tool obsidian_get_links.

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 context for use ('Useful for understanding how notes are connected and finding related content') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives. This is clear context without exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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