links.get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only states what the tool returns, without mentioning side effects, authentication needs, edge cases (e.g., missing file), or vault scope. This is insufficient for a tool with no additional 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 a single concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and is well-structured for easy reading.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple retrieval tool but misses details about vault parameter usage, return format, and error handling. It covers the core functionality but has gaps.

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%, so the description must add meaning. It explains the 'direction' parameter's enum values (outlinks/backlinks/both) and implicitly defines 'file' as the source file. However, it does not explain the 'vault' parameter at all, and 'file' lacks format details. Partial value added.

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 outlinks from the given file and/or backlinks from the vault. It uses specific verbs ('return') and resources ('outlinks', 'backlinks'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on editing or searching 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 explains when to use each direction (outlinks vs backlinks), implying usage for link retrieval. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives, though sibling tools are primarily for editing or searching, not link retrieval.

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