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

The description reveals no behavioral aspects such as side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full responsibility for transparency and fails to offer any.

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 extremely brief, which is concise but it sacrifices clarity. The phrasing is cryptic and lacks structure, making it difficult to parse the intended meaning.

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?

The description is incomplete given the ambiguity. It fails to provide a clear overview of the tool's capabilities, parameters, or relationship to sibling tools, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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 schema parameters 'query' and 'k' are not explained in the description. There is no indication of what each parameter does, how they influence the search, or their expected formats.

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 'search_vault + wikilinks discovered in source files' is vague and does not clearly state the tool's primary function. It hints at combining search with wikilinks but lacks a specific verb like 'searches' or 'expands'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools 'search_vault' or 'related_notes'. The description gives no context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the output type. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what link patterns are considered, how results are ordered, or what happens when no related notes exist.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to communicating the basic behavior.

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?

Although the tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects), the lack of annotations and output schema means the description should clarify more. It does not explain what forward links/backlinks mean, how the file parameter is used, or what the return structure looks like, so the description is not fully self-sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it adds no meaning beyond the schema's 'file' field. It is unclear whether 'file' expects a path, a filename, a note ID, or a display name, and whether 'for a note' refers to the file parameter at all.

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 ('Return') and names the exact resource ('forward links and backlinks for a note'), making the core purpose clear. It is distinct from sibling search tools at a high level, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use related_notes versus search_vault or expand_search. There are no context hints, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions, leaving the usage decision to the agent.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description should fully disclose behavioral aspects. It merely states 'semantic search' – which implies a read operation but does not explicitly state side effects, resource constraints, or result handling. No details on output stability, rate limits, or side effects are given. Minimal 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 a single sentence, which is concise. However, it is under-specified: it lacks necessary detail for an agent to use the tool effectively. The brevity is not a virtue because it omits critical information, making it more of an under-specification than a well-structured concise entry.

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?

The tool has two parameters and an output schema, but the description gives no information about return format, pagination, or semantics. Since annotations are missing, the description must bear the burden of explaining expected behavior. It fails to provide enough context to use the tool safely, especially for a semantic search that could have variable behavior.

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 0%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. The description does not mention 'query' or 'k' at all. The schema lists 'k' with a default but no description, and 'query' without context. This is a complete failure to provide any parameter semantics in the description.

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 states it performs 'semantic search' over the vault, which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'related_notes' or 'expand_search' – the term 'semantic' hints at a method but not why this one is distinct. Purpose is clear but not enriched with scope or contrast.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description only states what it does, not when it is the right choice. There is no mention of use cases, exclusions, or alternative recommendations.

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