vault_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavior: output paths are formatted as markdown links with obsidian:// protocol, and it warns against passing full markdown links to other tools. This adds significant context beyond the schema.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical output-formatting instruction. Every sentence adds necessary value with no redundancy.

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 no output schema or annotations, the description adequately covers purpose, output format, and a usage caveat. It is sufficiently complete for a simple retrieval tool, though it could explicitly mention the response structure (e.g., grouping by direction) for fuller transparency.

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 50%; only the path parameter has a description, and direction has none. The description clarifies that path arguments for other vault tools expect plain vault-relative paths, adding some meaning, but it does not explicitly explain the direction parameter or further refine path syntax, leaving gaps.

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 first sentence 'Get incoming and outgoing links for a note' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vault_add_links (which adds links) and vault_link_health (which checks link health) by focusing on retrieval.

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 usage for retrieving links but provides no explicit when-to-use or alternatives among sibling tools. The path-handling instruction about preserving link form and passing bracket text is useful but addresses output handling, not tool selection.

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