Explore Note Connections

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adds behavioral traits: result size blow-up with depth, default depth, and vault precedence. This provides useful context for safe and efficient use.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant words. Key information is front-loaded (purpose, depth limit, read-only). Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 presence of an output schema (so return value details not needed), the description covers purpose, parameter usage, behavioral caveats, and vault scoping. No gaps remain for a complex graph traversal tool.

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 67% (vaultPath lacks description). The description compensates by explaining vaultPath semantics (session-active vault vs explicit override). For noteName and depth, schema descriptions are sufficient.

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's purpose: exploring the graph neighbourhood around a seed note, specifying return of reachable notes and paths. It mentions depth and multi-hop, distinguishing it from direct link tools like links.outgoing.

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?

Explicitly warns against large depth values (keep ≤3 unless sparse) and explains vault scoping via `vaultPath`. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools for when not to use, though context is clear.

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