find_outgoing_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose the return format as a newline-separated list and handles the empty case, which is useful. However, it does not discuss error behavior, invalid note paths, or what types of links count, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 and well-structured with a clear Args and Returns layout. It leads with the main purpose and includes only essential information, with no redundant or filler content.

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 single-parameter, single-purpose tool, the description covers the core inputs and outputs sufficiently. It is slightly incomplete regarding edge cases and link syntax, but the provided information is enough to invoke the tool in the common case.

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 only defines note_path as a string with no description, but the tool description adds the critical semantic 'Path to the note relative to vault root.' This meaningfully clarifies how the parameter should be formed and compensates for the zero schema description coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('all notes that the specified note links to'), making the outgoing direction explicit. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool find_backlinks, which would cover the reverse direction.

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 a read-only link-following use case but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like find_backlinks, search_notes, or read_note. There are no exclusions or conditions to help an agent select among siblings.

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