vault_neighborhood

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly states the output structure (grouped by hop distance, frontmatter metadata) and a significant output formatting quirk (paths as markdown links with obsidian:// URLs). This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover failure modes or performance characteristics.

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, well-organized paragraph of three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating what the tool does, articulating its value, and providing essential formatting usage. No filler, and the critical markdown-link caveat earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return format (grouped by hop distance, with frontmatter metadata) and the special link formatting. It also includes use-case context and integration guidance for other vault tools. Minor gaps include not specifying what happens for missing paths or very large result sets, but that's beyond the essential context for a read-only exploration tool.

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 100%, so every parameter is already well-documented in the input schema. The description adds no further parameter-specific detail; the only related note (passing bracket text to other tools) concerns output handling rather than input semantics. 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Explore the graph neighborhood around a note by traversing wikilinks.' It further differentiates the tool by stating output is 'grouped by hop distance from the starting note' with frontmatter metadata, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_links or vault_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?

Provides explicit use-case guidance: 'Useful for understanding clusters, finding related context, and discovering connections.' It also includes a critical practical instruction about preserving markdown link formatting when relaying paths to users and passing only bracket text to other tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name when not to use this tool or compare directly with sibling alternatives.

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