Get outgoing links

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

The description adds meaningful context beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations. It explains that Obsidian resolves link targets, clarifying the returned paths, and defines 'unresolved' as links to non-existent notes. This helps the agent understand the tool's behavior and output semantics without contradicting the annotations.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. It includes the unresolved caveat and a potential use case without unnecessary fluff. It is concise and structured effectively, though it could be slightly improved by separating the use case into a clearer line.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what links are returned, how targets are resolved, and the special unresolved case. The includeDetails parameter is described in the schema, so the description focuses on semantics. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly, with only minor gaps like explicit return format examples.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters (path and includeDetails) fully described in the schema. The description does not add extra parameter-specific semantics; it only mentions a behavior related to unresolved links. Per the rubric, the baseline is 3 when schema coverage is high, and the description does not go beyond that.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Notes this note links to.' It explicitly distinguishes outgoing links from incoming ones via the tool name and mentions the special 'unresolved' case, which adds clarity beyond the title. An agent can immediately understand what the tool returns and how it differs from siblings like get_backlinks.

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 gives a specific use case ('useful for finding gaps to fill') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for exploring outgoing links but lacks direct comparison to siblings like get_backlinks, search, or read_note. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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