vault_follow_link

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It states the resolution outcome (actual note path) and gives format examples, but it doesn't explicitly mention read-only behavior, error handling when a link is invalid, or how response_format affects the output. The verb 'resolves' implies non-mutation but is not explicit.

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 entire description is a single focused sentence that front-loads the action and all essential information without 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?

For a resolver with three required parameters and no output schema, the description adequately states what the tool does and what it returns (the note path). It doesn't discuss edge cases like unresolved links or the difference between text/json response formats, but these are secondary for a simple lookup tool.

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 all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds an example with an alias ([[Note Target|Alias]]), which is not in the schema, but does not explain vault_name or response_format beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the specific verb 'resolves' and clearly identifies the resource (Zettelkasten/Wikilink format) and the output (actual note path). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vault_read_note which reads content, and vault_get_backlinks which finds inbound links.

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?

It establishes clear context: use when you need to convert a wikilink in a source note into a concrete vault path. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough that an agent can select it over related tools.

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