zettelkasten-mcp

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 only describes the basic operation without mentioning critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are formatted, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap 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, with the core purpose stated first followed by parameter details. It uses minimal words to convey essential information, though the formatting with indentation could be slightly cleaner. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient.

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 complexity of a tool that retrieves linked notes, the lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (e.g., list of notes, link details), error conditions, or behavioral constraints. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for reliable 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 description includes an 'Args' section that lists and briefly explains the two parameters ('note_id' and 'direction'), adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide details like the format of 'note_id' or examples for 'direction' values, so it only partially compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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: 'Get notes linked to/from a note.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('notes linked to/from a note'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'zk_get_note' or 'zk_search_notes', which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'zk_get_note' (for single notes) or 'zk_search_notes' (for broader searches), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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