vault_inspect_graph

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the expensive operation scope (a full-vault scan) and frames the output as aggregate metrics rather than raw data, which is useful context. However, it never states that the operation is read-only, whether results are cached or fresh per call, or that broken links are only counted and not listed — leaving real behavioral questions unanswered.

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 paragraph with a bracketed type tag, verb, and a bulleted metric list — no filler sentences. Minor cost: the bracketed tag duplicates the tool name and the list format consumes a few lines without adding guidance.

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?

The output schema exists, so the enumeration of metrics is arguably redundant, and the description is complete on the 'what do I get' axis. It falls short given two entirely undocumented parameters and no warning that a full-vault scan can be expensive for large vaults or that it should not be called repeatedly.

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% and the description makes no reference to either parameter. The meaning of `refresh` (force re-scan vs. use cached graph) and what `vault_path` selects when omitted (default vault?) are entirely undocumented, forcing the agent to guess before calling.

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 clear verb+resource ("Pindai seluruh vault Obsidian dan dapatkan metrik jaringan pengetahuan") and enumerates the exact metrics returned: node count, edge count, density, hubs, orphans, broken-link count. This is specific enough for an agent to know precisely what the tool produces. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with vault_find_broken_links or vault_get_backlinks, which overlap with the broken-link and hub metrics it reports.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the graph-wide analytics tool rather than a per-note or per-link tool, but there is no explicit "use this when…" statement, no exclusion, and no mention of alternatives. The overlap with vault_find_broken_links (which returns details rather than counts) is left for the agent to work out.

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