get_outlinks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds that both link types are included, but fails to explain return format, link resolution behavior, or handling of broken/self links. No output schema exists, so this gap is significant.

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 directly states the tool's action and scope without any filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, but the absence of an output schema and any behavioral details means the description does not fully prepare the agent for what to expect. It is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for nuanced use cases.

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%, with the 'path' parameter already described as 'Path to the note'. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('outgoing links'), and scope ('from a note'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like get_backlinks (incoming links) and get_link_graph (graph structure). It also specifies it returns both wikilinks and markdown links, leaving no ambiguity.

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 implies usage by stating exactly what it retrieves, and the inclusion of both link types provides useful context. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives like get_backlinks or find_broken_links, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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