get_global_note_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses pagination semantics (cursor round-trip, None means exhausted) and an access gate (requires a Pro plan, same as the web app's Global Graph). It omits any note about response size, rate limits, or why locked notes are included.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core scope front-loaded and no filler; each sentence adds a distinct fact (scope, pagination, access gate). Minor awkwardness in the parenthetical "(in or out) or is locked" but overall tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and the description covers scope, pagination, and the plan gate. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit parameter, which is a minor but real omission.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains cursor semantics well ("pass the response's next_cursor back in") but says nothing about the limit parameter, its default of 100, or any bounds, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 names a specific resource ("Whole-account link graph") with clear scope ("nodes and edges across every note that has at least one link (in or out) or is locked"). It implicitly distinguishes itself from per-note siblings like get_note_graph and get_note_backlinks by emphasizing "whole-account," but never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the "whole-account" scope rather than stated: an agent must infer that this tool is for account-wide graphs and the per-note siblings for local ones. Pagination guidance (pass next_cursor back) is given, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not framing or named alternative.

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