get_outgoing_links

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool returns internal links, external links, and tags, providing some insight into expected output. However, it doesn't mention error behavior, formatting, or explicitly state read-only status beyond the 'get' verb.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose first and then the return types. It contains zero wasted words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return types, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. It doesn't cover edge cases, but the simplicity of the operation doesn't require more. The presence of related sibling tools doesn't necessitate additional detail.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter 'path' with a description. The tool description adds 'from a note' which aligns with the path parameter but offers no additional parameter details. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema 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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'outgoing links from a note' and explicitly lists what is returned (internal links, external links, tags). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_backlinks and get_link_graph_data.

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's focus on 'outgoing links' gives clear context for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use. Despite lacking exclusions or comparisons, the context is sufficient for an agent to infer its role.

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