Get outbound links

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral details (lists embeds optionally, includes resolution status), which goes beyond the 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 two sentences, with the main purpose front-loaded. Every phrase adds value, and there is no redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (4 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, types of links, and resolution status. It lacks details on behavior when both path and title are provided, but overall is sufficient.

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 each parameter having a clear description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 lists outbound links (wikilinks and embeds) with resolution status. It explicitly distinguishes itself as the symmetric counterpart to obsidian_get_backlinks, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions it is the symmetric counterpart to obsidian_get_backlinks, providing a hint for when to use this tool (for outbound links) versus the sibling for inbound links. However, it does not provide explicit when-not or alternative guidance for other siblings.

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