vault_get_related

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the algorithmic basis (links, backlinks, tags) and ordering, but does not explicitly confirm read-only status, error behavior, or output structure. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and every phrase adds value.

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?

For moderate complexity, the description covers core functionality and ordering. However, since there is no output schema, it could have stated what the returned related notes look like (e.g., whether scores are included). Still, it is sufficiently complete for a read tool.

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 100%, so all parameters are already documented. The tool description adds no extra meaning to the parameters, making the baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('Finds') and resource ('notes conceptually related to a given note'), with explicit criteria (direct links, backlinks, shared tags) and ordering by relationship score. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like vault_get_backlinks and vault_search.

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?

Provides clear context for use (finding conceptually related notes) and implicitly differentiates from more specific alternatives. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so a full 5 is not warranted.

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