obsidian_get_links

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 does not disclose the return format (link targets vs display text vs both), whether unresolved links are included, or any ordering/normalization behavior. For a read-only listing tool this leaves meaningful gaps.

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 wasted words. Appropriately sized, though it is short to the point of under-covering behavior.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is too thin for a tool whose output shape and link-resolution semantics an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It adds that 'path' identifies a note (rather than a folder or vault), which is modest value, but says nothing about path format, extension handling, or vault-relative vs absolute expectations.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('outgoing internal links'), plus the scope ('within a note'). The word 'outgoing' implicitly separates it from the sibling obsidian_get_backlinks, though that sibling is never named.

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 statement of when to use this vs alternatives such as obsidian_get_backlinks, obsidian_get_unresolved_links, or obsidian_get_deadends. Usage is only weakly implied by 'outgoing' and 'within a note'.

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