obsidian_get_deadends

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the filtering criterion, but omits read-only confirmation (implied by 'Lists'), vault scope, return format, and whether the scan is expensive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the definition.

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 0-parameter query tool, the description states the returned set clearly enough to invoke. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it should indicate return shape and vault scope; those gaps leave it only minimally complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the rubric baseline is 4. No parameter semantics are needed, and the description adds none.

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?

Uses a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('notes') plus the exact graph condition 'incoming links but zero outgoing links'. This distinguishes it from graph-analysis siblings like get_orphans (no incoming links) and get_links (outgoing links of a given note), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

Provides no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. It defines the returned set but never says when an agent should choose this over obsidian_get_orphans or obsidian_get_links.

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