obsidian_get_links

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it adds almost nothing beyond the verb. It does not say whether links are returned as raw wikilinks, resolved paths, or with line/context info, nor whether the note must exist. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably too thin for a tool that has no annotations or output schema to fall back on.

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?

Parameters are fully covered by the schema, but with no annotations and no output schema the description leaves the return shape of the links unspecified, which is the main thing an agent needs to plan around. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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?

Both parameters (file_path, vault_path) are fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning about path resolution or when the vault_path override matters.

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 and resource (get outgoing links from a note), and the word "outgoing" implicitly distinguishes it from the obsidian_get_backlinks and obsidian_get_broken_links siblings. It stops short of naming those alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the closely related obsidian_get_backlinks or obsidian_get_broken_links tools an agent might confuse it with. The only hint of usage is the implicit read-only framing of "Get".

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