Explore Note Connections

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by detailing the return structure (reachable notes and paths) and the effect of the depth parameter on result size. It also clarifies vault selection behavior. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint).

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, using two well-structured paragraphs. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides usage warnings and vault context. Every sentence contributes meaning without 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately covers the tool's purpose, return structure, parameter effects, and operational context. No gaps remain for a read-only 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?

The description adds context for noteName ('basename match is fine') and vaultPath (overrides session vault). The depth parameter guidance echoes the schema but is reinforced. With schema coverage at 67%, the description compensates by synthesizing key information and explaining the vaultPath argument's semantics.

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: 'Explore the graph neighbourhood around a seed note — direct and multi-hop connections' and specifies the return value (reachable notes and paths). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like backlinks or broken links, which focus on specific link types rather than graph traversal.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Higher depth values blow up result size quickly; keep it ≤3 unless you know the graph is sparse.' It also explains vault targeting behavior (session-active vault vs. explicit vaultPath). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context makes it clear.

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