Get outgoing links

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=false (deterministic). The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating the output. With annotations present, a score of 3 is appropriate—it does not contradict but also does not add value.

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 without any redundant information. It is front-loaded and contains every word is necessary.

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?

While the description and schema cover the input parameters, it lacks information about the return format (e.g., whether links are resolved or unresolved, or the structure of the output). Given no output schema, more detail would be beneficial for completeness.

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 all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is already in the input schema, so baseline score 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 clearly states the tool returns outgoing wikilinks from a note, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like obsidian_get_backlinks (incoming links) and obsidian_search.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention that for backlinks one should use obsidian_get_backlinks, nor does it provide context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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