Get backlinks

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description is consistent. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond 'returns notes that link' – it does not disclose output format, pagination, or scope (e.g., all vault notes). Given annotation coverage, the burden is partially met.

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 efficient sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and conveys the core purpose immediately.

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 is a simple read query with readOnlyHint annotation and no output schema, the description is sufficient to understand the basic purpose but lacks details about the return format (e.g., note names, paths, or full content) and any limitations such as number of results. This leaves some ambiguity for the agent.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description does not add any new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. Per rubric, baseline score of 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 'returns' and clearly identifies the resource: 'notes that link to the target note'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like obsidian_get_links (which returns links from a note) and obsidian_search (full-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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context in which get_backlinks is preferred over siblings like get_links or search.

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