obsidian_links

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no destructive side effects. The description adds that the tool lists outgoing links, but it does not disclose the exact return format (e.g., an array of link strings) or whether it might fail for certain file types. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentence conveys the core functionality without extra words. It front-loads the key action and resource efficiently.

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 existence of sibling tools like obsidian_backlinks and obsidian_read, the description could mention relationships. The lack of an output schema means the description should hint at the return structure, but it does not. Annotations partially compensate for safety, but completeness is only adequate.

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 schema covers 100% of parameters, so the description does not need to add much. However, the description does not elaborate on how 'total' behaves when true, nor clarify the difference between 'file' and 'path'. The schema descriptions are clear, but the tool description adds no extra value.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'outgoing links from a file', making the tool's specific purpose unambiguous. It naturally distinguishes from sibling tools like obsidian_backlinks.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like obsidian_backlinks or obsidian_read. The description lacks any context about when it's appropriate or not, leaving the agent without decision support.

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