find_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'shows' connections, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific permissions, what the output format is (though an output schema exists), or any rate limits or side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 highly concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose in the first sentence, then provides parameter details in a separate 'Args' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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's low complexity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and implied usage context. However, it could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like permissions or output structure, but the output schema mitigates some of this need.

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?

The description adds meaningful context for the single parameter 'capture_id', explaining it's a 'numeric ID returned by upload_capture or search_captures'. This clarifies the parameter's source and type beyond what the schema provides (which has 0% description coverage and only states it's an integer). Since there's only one parameter and the description compensates well for the low schema coverage, a score of 4 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Show all connections for a specific capture' with specific details about what constitutes connections ('tag overlap and @-references'). It distinguishes this from siblings like 'search_captures' or 'list_by_tag' by focusing on connections within a single capture rather than searching or listing captures. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 implies usage context by specifying that 'capture_id' comes from 'upload_capture or search_captures', suggesting when to use this tool after those operations. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'suggest_synthesis' or 'dream_patterns', nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the ID requirement.

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