get_outlinks

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

Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior; the description adds that the output covers both valid and broken links, giving an agent expectations about the result content. It is consistent with the readOnlyHint and adds value beyond the structured annotations.

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 filler; the primary action is stated first, and the secondary detail about valid and broken links is appended efficiently. Every word 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 simple single-parameter tool with annotations, the description is mostly adequate, but because there is no output schema and no parameter details, an agent is left without knowing the expected link output structure or the path syntax. The mention of valid vs broken links gives some context but not enough to fully predict the return format.

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%, and the description only refers to 'a note' without explicitly mapping the 'path' parameter to the note's file path, its format, or whether it expects an absolute or relative path. With a single required parameter, more explicit instruction would be needed for correct invocation.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'List' with a clear resource 'outgoing wikilinks from a note', and distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'all' outgoing links and showing both valid and broken links, which differentiates it from get_backlinks (incoming links) and find_broken_links (broken-only 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 implies the tool is for retrieving outgoing wikilinks from a specified note, and its mention of broken links hints at utility for link health checks, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives like get_backlinks or find_broken_links, nor does it provide exclusions.

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