get_backlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds the performance characteristic ('fast, pure index lookup') and the sort order. It does not describe pagination behavior, ownership, or failure modes. With annotations covering the read-only nature, a 3 is fair – it adds a bit but not extensive behavioral 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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, performance characteristic, and sort order. Front-loaded with the core function. No filler.

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 operation with fully documented parameters (schema coverage 100%) and a clear description, the agent has everything needed to invoke it. Missing an explicit output structure, but no output schema exists impossible to know exactly, but the description mentions source line and optional excerpt, which is adequate. Could mention pagination but not critical. Score 4 because it covers the essentials.

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 100%, with each parameter described. The description adds context on the 'excerpt' (optional, ~200 chars) and the sort order, which enriches understanding of 'limit' and 'includeExcerpt'. It goes slightly beyond pure schema repetition, earning a 4.

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 states a specific verb ('Return'), a precise resource ('every note that links to the target note'), and the result shape (source line, optional excerpt). It implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_links (which likely returns outgoing links) and search, making the operation unmistakable.

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 contextual signals for when to use this tool: it is a reverse-link lookup backed by a pre-built index, implying it is the fast, intended path for finding inbound references. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'pure index lookup' phrasing signals it is not for full-text search or outgoing links. Slight gap: no explicit 'use X instead' guidance.

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