get_note_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the result shape and the hop-expansion behavior, which is real value, but says nothing about read-only safety, cost/latency of hops=2 traversal, graph size limits, or handling of locked notes.

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 dense sentences: the first defines the output and the second defines the parameter semantics. Nothing is repeated and the core concept is front-loaded.

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 values need not be re-explained, and the description nonetheless sketches the node/edge shape. The hops semantics complete the parameter story; only traversal boundaries and mutation/safety posture are unaddressed, and the latter is low-risk for a read 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameter: hops=1 means direct neighbors only while hops=2 expands each neighbor's neighbors one level further. note_id is covered as the graph center. Only minor gaps remain (behavior for hops > 2).

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 ('Local link graph centered on note_id') and enumerates what is returned (nodes with id/title/locked, edges as source -> target), so the agent knows exactly what it produces. 'Local' implicitly contrasts with get_global_note_graph, but no sibling is named 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 only implied: the hops explanation hints at scope tradeoffs, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over get_note_backlinks, get_related_notes, or get_graph_analysis. An agent must infer routing from the word 'local' alone.

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