entities_in_document

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that results include tags, wikilinks, and entities, and importantly notes the conditional dependency: entities appear 'once the semantic pass has run.' This goes beyond the name and schema, though it doesn't mention auth, side effects, or error behavior.

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: two sentences deliver the core purpose, usage context, and parameter guidance. It is front-loaded with the action and outputs, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (so return format is covered), the description provides all necessary context: what to use it for, when to use it, the conditional semantic pass, and path semantics. Sibling tool names further clarify boundaries. The description is complete for this simple, single-parameter 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 input schema has one parameter with no description (0% schema coverage), so the description compensates by explaining that `path` is 'relative to the knowledge base root' and gives a concrete example ('projects/my-project.md'). This adds meaningful semantic information, though it leaves minor details like extension requirements implied.

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 function with a specific verb: 'Show what a specific note is about' and lists the concrete outputs (tags, wikilinks in/out, entities). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on a known note's neighborhood rather than search or global aggregation.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use when you already know which note you care about and want its neighbourhood.' It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the usage context is clear and distinct from sibling tools like semantic_search or similar_documents.

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