Get Outlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by detailing output partitions (valid, broken, embeds) and return fields (raw link text, resolved paths). No side effects mentioned but none expected.

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 efficient sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence conveys the core action and output format; the second provides use cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers functionality, output structure, and use cases. Annotations cover safety, so no gaps remain.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear parameter description. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, 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?

Clearly states the tool lists outgoing wikilinks from a note and partitions them into three categories. The verb 'list' and resource 'outgoing wikilinks from a note' are specific, and the function is distinct from siblings like get_backlinks (incoming) or find_broken_links (global).

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?

Explicitly states three use cases: auditing references, detecting broken links, and following dependencies. Provides clear context for when to use this tool, though it could explicitly mention alternatives for global broken link detection.

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