suggest_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and clearly states the tool is read-only and never creates connections. It also explains the matching criteria (labels, descriptions, tags). However, it does not describe the return format beyond 'up to 5 candidate connections,' leaving some ambiguity.

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: first defines purpose and matching, second provides usage context and read-only note. No wasted words.

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 lack of output schema, the description covers essential behavior, usage context, and safety. It could benefit from specifying the return structure (e.g., IDs only?) but is sufficient for likely scenarios.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions the limit implicitly but adds no extra detail beyond the schema for the 'id' parameter.

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 returns candidate connections based on overlapping labels, descriptions, or tags, given a node ID. This is a specific verb ('return up to 5 candidate connections') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'connect' that create connections.

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 advises using this tool 'after filing a memory to discover likely connections before calling connect,' providing clear when-to-use context. It also clarifies it is read-only, but does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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