get_links

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output components (outbound resolved, broken, backlinks) and explains the include_context parameter behavior (adds linking lines, call-time file reads). It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a read-only operation this is sufficient.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no superfluous words. Every sentence adds value: action, use case, and optional parameter explanation.

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 no output schema, the description explains the output categories (outbound, broken, backlinks) and the effect of include_context. It references a 'link-context convention' without elaboration, which is a minor gap, but overall it provides enough context for the agent to understand what the tool returns.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds only a brief rephrasing for include_context ('who references this note, and why'), which provides some added context but not substantial new meaning beyond the schema.

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 resolves the Obsidian link graph for a note, including outbound wikilinks, broken links, and backlinks. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_notes or get_related_notes, which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly says 'Use it to traverse related knowledge,' providing a clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not offer alternatives or when-not conditions, so it stops short of a full 5.

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