graph

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

No annotations provided, but the description discloses the tool's behavior: it returns both resolved and unresolved outgoing links, paginated backlinks, and depth restriction. It does not mention any destructive actions or permissions, but for a read-only graph tool, the description is transparent.

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 two sentences, front-loading the output components and constraints. Every word adds value; there is no fluff.

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?

Without an output schema, the description could be more detailed about the structure of the returned data (e.g., how links are organized). It mentions the types of links but not the format, leaving some ambiguity for a complex response.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that 'path' accepts vault-relative paths, titles, and frontmatter aliases, which is not fully detailed in the schema. This gives the agent useful flexibility hints.

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 a note's link neighborhood, specifying resolved outgoing wikilinks, unresolved outgoing links, and paginated backlinks. It distinguishes from siblings like 'note' (returns note content) and 'search' (full-text search) by focusing on graph connectivity.

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 mentions depth is limited to 1 and accepted path formats, giving clear constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings, though the purpose is distinct enough that it's implied.

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