Get Outlinks

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new behavior by disclosing the three-way result partitioning and that raw link text plus resolved paths are returned. It says nothing about ordering, limits, or whether nested/transcluded links are followed.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the operation and the exact result shape, the second front-loads the use cases. No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates well by describing the partition and returned fields; safety comes from annotations and the single param is fully covered by the schema. Minor gaps remain on edge behavior (missing source note, link ordering, non-wikilink URLs).

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?

With 100% schema description coverage on a single 'path' parameter, the schema carries the semantics (vault-relative path, extension optional). The description adds no further meaning about how path is interpreted or what happens if the note does not exist — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every outgoing wikilink from a note') and even describes the output partitioning into valid/broken/embeds. The word 'outgoing' implicitly separates it from get_backlinks, but the overlap with find_broken_links (also named as a use case here) is never resolved.

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?

Gives three concrete use cases (audit references, detect broken links, follow downstream dependencies), which is clear context for invocation. It stops short of exclusions or naming alternatives such as find_broken_links or get_backlinks when those would be the better choice.

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