get_outgoing_links

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states the action but does not mention any traits like required file existence, permission needs, error cases, or whether empty results are possible. Score 2 for insufficient disclosure.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it front-loads the key action. However, it would benefit from additional context about the parameter or return value. Score 3 for acceptable conciseness but minimal structure.

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 has only one parameter with no output schema and many sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not cover return format, error handling, or usage tips. Score 2 for insufficient completeness.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the parameter 'path' has no description in the schema. The tool description does not explain what 'path' means (e.g., relative vs absolute, required format). The description adds no value beyond the schema. Score 2 for lack of parameter context.

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 it lists wikilinks from a vault file, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the sibling get_backlinks (which lists links pointing to the file) but not from other similar tools like get_note_outline. Score 4 for clear purpose but minor differentiation gaps.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_backlinks or list_vault_files. There is no mention of prerequisites or context. Score 2 due to lack of usage guidance.

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