related_notes

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

The description goes beyond annotations (which are absent) to disclose that the tool is structural only and does no semantic analysis, and that results include a reason for each match. This is important context for the agent to set expectations. It also warns that candidates need manual judgment. This is valuable behavioral disclosure.

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 concise, with two sentences contributing to clarity. It front-loads the core purpose and scoring criteria, then adds the behavioral disclaimer. No filler words. It could be slightly clearer on parameter usage, but it's well-structured.

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 tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema and annotations, the description is fairly complete for usage. It covers what it does, how matches are scored, and the limitation. However, it doesn't specify the format of 'path' or whether the result includes the reason in a structured way, which an agent might need. Also, no guidance on how limit affects results, but that's minor.

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 for documenting parameters. It doesn't explicitly explain 'path' or 'limit', but the description implies 'path' is the note identifier and 'limit' is not mentioned at all. Since the schema provides default for limit and names parameters clearly, the description adds minimal value. Score is 3 because schema has defaults and clear type, but description could have clarified path format.

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 identifies the tool as finding graph neighbours of a note and specifies the scoring criteria (direct links, shared outbound links, shared tags). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like backlinks (which likely focuses only on direct backlinks) and search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state the resource type (note) but it's implied by 'note'.

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 explains the matching logic but does not explicitly say when to use this over alternatives such as backlinks or search tools. The warning about structural-only matching implies it's for graph exploration, but no direct comparison to siblings. The note to 'Judge the candidates yourself' gives some context on expected use, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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