link_stats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It says 'Return' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state that the tool makes no modifications or has no side effects. The behavioral impact is not fully disclosed.

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 concise, using two short sentences to convey the purpose and included output categories. There is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description does not specify the structure of the returned statistics. While it lists the categories, it leaves unclear what 'totals' refers to (e.g., total links, total notes) and how the data is formatted. This lack of detail makes the tool's output ambiguous.

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 only parameter (limit) is fully described in the schema with its default and meaning. The description adds no additional semantic information beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 returns vault link statistics and enumerates the specific categories included (totals, most-referenced notes, and notes with most outlinks). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual note backlinks or outlinks.

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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it compared to alternatives like get_backlinks or get_outlinks. There is no mention of scenarios where this aggregate view would be preferred.

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