get_outgoing_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the basic action but lacks details on behavior: e.g., whether it returns paths or titles, what happens if the note doesn't exist, or if there are permissions required. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 a single sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and conveys the essential purpose clearly. Every word adds value.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of paths, note names). It only says 'the notes it links to' without specifying format or structure. This lack of detail reduces completeness for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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% for the single parameter 'note_path', which already has a description ('Relative path of the note.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 clearly states the tool extracts [[wikilinks]] from a note, indicating it retrieves outgoing links. The verb 'Extracts' and resource 'wikilinks' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_backlinks' (which retrieves incoming links), though the name and context make it somewhat clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_backlinks' or 'read_note'. No prerequisites, context, or exclusions are mentioned. The agent receives no help in deciding which tool to invoke.

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