get_connection_graph

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions multi-level and semantic connections, but does not disclose potential performance implications for deep graphs, how thresholds affect results, or whether it triggers expensive embedding computations. It provides some behavioral context but leaves room for more detail.

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 a single, concise sentence that clearly states the tool's function without extraneous information. It front-loads the primary action (build a connection graph) and includes key qualifiers (multi-level, starting from a note, semantic connections). It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description, combined with a fully covered schema, provides enough information for an agent to understand and invoke the tool. It lacks details on the output format (no output schema), but for a graph-building tool, the purpose and parameters are clear. It could mention how the graph is returned (e.g., as nodes/edges) but the absence is 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?

The schema covers all parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds context by explaining the purpose (multi-level, semantic connections), which complements the schema. For example, 'threshold' and 'max_per_level' are self-explanatory, but the description reinforces their role in building the graph. It does not add new parameter details but integrates them into the tool's purpose.

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 builds a multi-level connection graph starting from a note, showing semantic connections. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_similar_notes (which likely returns a flat list) and search_notes (text-based search). However, it could be more explicit about the visual/graph output nature.

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 exploring semantic connections, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like get_similar_notes or get_embedding_neighbors. It does not mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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