obsidian_links

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. The word 'Get' clearly signals a non-mutating read operation, and the description states what will be returned: outgoing wikilinks and incoming backlinks. It does not cover missing-note or error behavior, but for a simple query tool the behavioral profile is transparent.

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 tightly-worded sentence that front-loads the operation and its scope. There is no fluff, repetition, or irrelevant detail.

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 conveys the return semantics: outgoing links and incoming backlinks. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool, though exact output format and edge-case behavior are left unspecified.

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%: the only parameter, path, is documented as 'Relative path to the note' in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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'), names the resource ([[wikilinks]] in a note), and defines the exact scope: outgoing links and incoming backlinks. This makes it readily distinguishable from sibling tools like obsidian_read or obsidian_tags.

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 use case is implied: call this when you need outgoing or incoming links for a note. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no statement about when other tools like obsidian_read or obsidian_search would be more appropriate.

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