zk_find_central_notes

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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's a read operation (implied by 'Find'), discloses a constraint ('only one link of each type is counted between any pair of notes'), and explains the ranking logic. However, it does not cover aspects like performance, error handling, or output format, leaving some gaps in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The explanation of ranking and constraints is necessary, and the parameter documentation is concise. However, the formatting with indentation and blank lines slightly reduces efficiency, but overall, most sentences earn their place without waste.

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 moderate complexity (ranking based on connections), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose, constraint, and parameter semantics well, but lacks details on the output format, error conditions, or performance considerations, which would enhance completeness for an agent's use.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for the single parameter 'limit' by explaining its purpose ('Maximum number of results to return') and default value. This fully compensates for the schema gap, though it does not provide additional details like range constraints or examples.

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 specific action ('Find notes with the most connections'), identifies the resource ('notes'), and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on centrality ranking rather than other criteria like similarity, orphan status, or date. It explains the ranking methodology ('ranked by their total number of connections') and the scope ('incoming + outgoing links'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 for identifying central notes in a knowledge network, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'zk_find_similar_notes' or 'zk_get_linked_notes'. It mentions 'database constraints' which provides some context, but lacks clear guidance on scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings or any exclusions.

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