Get Outlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by specifying that links are partitioned into categories and that raw text and resolved paths are returned. No contradictions; it supplements the annotations with functional behavior.

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 no wasted words. Key information is front-loaded: what it does, then the partitioning details, then usage guidance.

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 tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It explains the output categories and usage. Minor omission: no mention of how aliases or transclusions are handled, but this is acceptable for a focused tool.

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 single parameter 'path' is already well-documented in the schema (100% coverage), including an example. The description mentions return values but does not add new semantic meaning to the parameter beyond the schema.

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 outgoing wikilinks from a note, partitioning them into valid, broken, and file embeds. It uses specific verbs ('List') and resources ('outgoing wikilinks'), and distinguishes from siblings like get_backlinks which handles incoming links.

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 provides explicit usage scenarios: 'audit a note's references, detect broken links, or follow downstream dependencies.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with find_broken_links, which is a sibling tool for broader link checking.

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