wikilinks

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does a good job by specifying the four operational modes and the exact supported wikilink syntax variants (alias, heading, blockid). It does not explicitly state that operations are read-only or describe return shape, but the navigation framing and action definitions strongly imply no side effects.

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: it opens with the resource, then enumerates all actions, and closes with syntax support. Every sentence adds useful information and there is no filler.

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 multi-action navigation tool with no output schema, the description covers all actions, the parameter roles, and the supported link syntax comprehensively. It stops short of describing return formats or error behavior, but these are minor given how clearly the actions define what will be found or listed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by documenting the supported wikilink syntax forms. It also reinforces the dual meaning of 'path' across resolve versus backlinks/outlinks, though the schema already captures most parameter semantics.

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 names the resource (Obsidian [[wikilinks]]) and enumerates four concrete actions with definitions: resolve, backlinks, outlinks, unresolved. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_vault and read_note.

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?

Each action is described with its intended use case, so an agent can pick among the actions. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling tools like search_vault or read_note, and it offers no exclusions or prerequisites. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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