find_backlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it discloses that scanning covers both frontmatter array keys and wikilinks/markdown links in the body. This helps an agent predict what counts as a backlink. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences with no filler: the core behavior, the scanning details, and the use case. Every sentence earns its place and the key return behavior is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what inputs it scans, and why an agent would use it. Nothing critical is missing.

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% and the schema already describes 'slug' as 'Target vault-relative slug (omit the .md extension).' The description refers to 'target slug' but adds no new parameter-level detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Return every node that points to the target slug.' It clearly defines the tool's output as backlinks and distinguishes it from forward-link or path-finding tools by explicitly scoping to nodes pointing toward the slug.

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 last sentence, 'Used by AI agents to walk the graph from a node to its dependents,' gives clear contextual use. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended scenario is evident.

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