get_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail on how backlinks are resolved (filename stem, frontmatter title, aliases, case-insensitive, mirroring Obsidian). This is genuinely useful context that explains non-obvious linking semantics and goes beyond what the annotations and schema provide.

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 compact—two short sentences. The first sentence states the tool's dual function (outbound links + backlinks), and the second efficiently details backlink matching semantics. Every sentence earns its place with zero 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?

The tool has an output schema (which presumably documents the return shape), one clear parameter (path), and good annotations. The description covers behavior adequately: it names outbound links and backlinks and explains matching logic. For a relatively simple read-only tool, this is complete.

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 has only one parameter (path), which is self-explanatory as a file path. The description doesn't need to add much, though it could mention what kind of path (absolute vs relative), but for a single obvious parameter, the schema baseline covers it.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'get' links for a note, with an explicit scope covering both outbound wiki-links and inbound backlinks. This is specific and distinguishes a graph/linking tool from the sibling read_note (content reading) and search_wiki (content search). The description states precisely what is retrieved.

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 clearly specifies what the tool returns (outbound links + backlinks) and the exact matching criteria for backlinks. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like search_wiki or list_recent, nor state when to choose this over them. Usage context is implied by the link-focused content, but no explicit when/when-not guidance is given.

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