backlinks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only retrieval operation ('Trouve') and includes a Returns line, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as invalid paths, empty results, or side effects (though none are expected). The coverage is basic but sufficient for a simple read tool.

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, with a single purpose sentence followed by clearly labeled Args and Returns sections. Every sentence provides necessary information, and the structured format (Args/Returns) makes it easy to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, straightforward purpose) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It names the argument, explains its meaning, and states what the result is (list of notes with backlinks). No critical information is missing for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema provides only the property name 'path' with a type string and no description (coverage 0%). The description's Args section clarifies that 'path' accepts either a chemin (path) or a titre (title), adding crucial semantic meaning that the schema lacks. This fully compensates for the zero schema coverage.

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 action ('Trouve' = finds) and the resource ('les notes qui pointent vers cette note' = notes that point to this note), unambiguously identifying it as a backlink lookup tool. This is distinct from sibling tools like 'similar' (content similarity) and 'search' (text search).

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 its usage by stating its function (finding backlinks), but it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, so it is minimally adequate but lacks explicit differentiation from sibling tools.

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