find_hub_notes_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors itself. It mentions performance metrics for different note counts, which provides some transparency. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it discuss required permissions or side effects.

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 around 10 lines with clear sections: purpose, explanation, when to use, performance, and returns. Every sentence serves a purpose and there is no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage context, performance expectations, and the output format (list sorted by outlink count). The only gap is the undocumented ctx parameter, which prevents a perfect score.

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 67%; two of three parameters have descriptions. The description adds context like default values and range for min_outlinks, and explains vault_path optionality and environment variable fallback. However, the ctx parameter remains undocumented, and the description does not add significant new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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 'Find hub notes with high outlink counts' and elaborates on what hub notes are. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like find_broken_links_tool and get_outgoing_links_tool by focusing on outlink count centrality.

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 'When to use' section lists four concrete scenarios (finding index/MOC notes, identifying navigation points, etc.). While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, the context is clear and helpful.

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