get_links

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses scanning for specific link patterns, returning link details, and backlinks. However, it does not mention error handling or side effects (though likely read-only). Overall, sufficient behavioral 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?

Description is well-structured with bullet points and examples, but slightly longer than necessary. Front-loaded with main action. Every sentence adds value, though some repetition (e.g., 'Returns' line replicates what output schema likely covers).

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 simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains purpose, link formats, and return content. Missing edge cases or permissions, but adequate for typical use.

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 100% for the single parameter 'note_id'. Description adds context about how the note is used (scanning for links, backlinks), but does not add essential meaning beyond the schema's 'Note ID to extract links from'. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Extract all links... and find backlinks' with specific verb and resource. It details link formats and what is returned, making the purpose unmistakable. While no explicit sibling differentiation, the scope is precise and distinct enough among the listed siblings.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_note' or 'find_notes'. The description does not mention when it should be preferred or excluded, leaving the agent without context for tool selection.

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