Get Note Links

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral details: it extracts both wiki-style and markdown links, and reports whether each linked note exists in the vault. It also explicitly shows the returned object structure, which helps set expectations for the agent. This goes beyond 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded. The first sentence states the purpose, then a concise sentence covers link types and existence checking, and the return format is shown as a small code block. No fluff.

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 read-only tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers behavior, link types, existence flag, and return structure. However, it does not specify behavior for nonexistent notes or edge cases (e.g., missing file, empty links). Given the context and annotations, this is acceptable but not perfect.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions: path as 'Relative path to the note' and response_format as enum with default. The description does not add new parameter semantics but does show a return example that implies the path usage. Since schema coverage is high, baseline of 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?

The description opens with a specific verb-resource pair: 'Get outgoing links from a specific note.' This clearly identifies the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like obsidian_get_backlinks (incoming links) and obsidian_read_note (note content).

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 does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use. It implies usage context via 'outgoing links' and 'specific note,' but lacks explicit references to sibling tools or exclusion criteria. The sibling list is separate, not in description.

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