get_links

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

With readOnlyHint true)Skip, the description adds behavioral details: marks links as resolved/unresolved, de-duplicates targets, sorts by line number. This goes beyond the annotation's safety hint, providing useful output behavior. No contradiction.

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 concise, two sentences, with key behaviors front-loaded (outgoing links) and additional details succinctly stated. 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 a single required parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it returns and its behavior. It lacks explicit error cases or whether the note must exist, but given simplicity and annotations, it is largely complete.

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 fully covered by the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. It does not describe format or errors, but the schema requirement is clear. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states it returns outgoing wikilinks and embeds from a note, which is specific and distinct from get_backlinks (incoming links). It mentions resolution, de-duplication, and sorting, but does not explicitly contrast with siblings.

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 it is used to inspect outgoing links from a note, but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given the sibling get_backlinks, a note on when each is appropriate would be helpful. The description does not mention the note must exist or prerequisites.

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