get_link_graph_data

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the output shape (nodes and edges) and the scope (folder/vault), but does not mention limitations, performance implications, or that it is a read-only operation. This adds some context beyond the schema but is 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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to conveying what the tool does and what it returns.

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 simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the core aspects: what data is returned (nodes/edges), the scope (folder/vault), and the purpose (visualization). It is missing explicit alternative guidance, but remains sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for 'folder' and 'maxNotes', so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the overall purpose but does not enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool retrieves link graph data for a folder or the entire vault, and specifies the output as nodes and edges for visualization. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_outgoing_links or get_backlinks, which focus on individual note links.

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 implies usage for graph-wide visualization by mentioning 'folder or entire vault' as the scope, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_outgoing_links, get_backlinks, or find_broken_links. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative guidance.

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