list_forward_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function without detailing output format, error handling, or default behavior of the include_broken parameter (defaults to true in schema). The description is minimal and leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. It front-loades the purpose and adds a secondary option. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or extraneous 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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, and exists among many similar sibling tools, the description is too brief. It fails to explain the vault parameter, output format, or how broken links are represented. An agent would lack important details to use the tool correctly without further context.

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%, but the description hints at two parameters: 'FROM a given note' implies path, and 'Optionally include broken links' hints at include_broken. However, the vault parameter is not explained, and include_broken's default is not indicated. The description adds some meaning but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it lists forward wikilinks from a note, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_backlinks (which lists backlinks) and find_broken_links (which finds broken links). The verb 'list' and resource 'wikilinks FROM a given note' are specific and 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 implies usage for viewing outgoing links from a note and optionally filtering broken links, but it does not explicitly compare with siblings or state when to use alternatives. No when-not-to or context for exclusion is provided.

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