list_forward_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it lists forward links and can optionally include broken links, which is useful context, but it doesn't disclose return format, pagination, or any behavioral nuances beyond what annotations and schema imply.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste, front-loading the core action and then the optional parameter. Perfectly sized for a simple list tool.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and option. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., what a wikilink looks like) and does not compensate for the complete absence of parameter descriptions in the schema, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that 'path' and 'vault' identify the note and vault, and that 'include_broken' toggles broken links, covering all parameters at a high level. However, it doesn't clarify the distinction between vault and path, nor does it note the default value (true) for include_broken, leaving gaps.

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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('wikilinks FROM a given note'), clearly distinguishing it from backlink tools by direction. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools or contrast alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'FROM a given note' and the optional broken links, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_backlinks or find_broken_links. The description provides context but not decision criteria.

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