get_link_graph_tool

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

Without annotations, the description adds value by noting performance characteristics and stating it is 'filesystem-native, offline'. It implies read-only operation and provides return expectations.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections, bullet points, and front-loaded purpose. Efficiently conveys necessary information without excessive verbosity.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, performance, and return type fairly well. Some details like exact output format could be added but not critical.

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 coverage is 50% with only vault_path described in schema. The description adds no extra parameter details; ctx remains undocumented. Parameter semantics are weak.

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 it fetches a 'complete link graph for the vault', specifying verb 'get', resource 'link graph', and details inlinks, outlinks, and link types. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_note_connections_tool or get_backlinks_tool.

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 appropriate scenarios like understanding vault structure and building visualization data. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context is clear.

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