brain_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full transparency burden. It accurately describes a read-only operation that lists links without any side effects. The wording 'based on the current index' implies reading from an existing index, and nothing suggests destructive or modifying behavior, making it fully transparent.

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 and well-structured: two sentences for behavior and one for usage. There is no redundant information; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's function and use case.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns: 'lists every note the given note links to (outbound) and every note that links back to it (inbound)'. This fully covers the expected output, and the parameter is clearly defined, so no critical context 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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters and describes the single 'note' parameter as 'note name (file stem) to look up'. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: 'Show the Obsidian-style [[wikilink]] graph around a note' and explicitly details the behavior as listing outbound and inbound links. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like brain_search or brain_ask, especially with the phrase 'based on the current index'.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'use to explore how a topic connects to others before asking questions, or to find related notes when search keywords fail.' This clarifies when to prefer this tool over alternatives, such as when search fails or before asking questions.

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