get_related_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the Pro-plan requirement, the 403 ownership failure, the 404 missing-note failure, and that results are ranked by a similarity score with shared tags. It stops short of stating that this is a read-only operation with no side effects and says nothing about result size or pagination beyond the implicit limit.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by gating and error conditions. The opening phrase 'Tag/link-similarity ... suggestions' is slightly awkward but dense rather than padded.

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?

For a 2-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return shape needn't be explained), the description covers purpose, access gating, and both error modes. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained limit parameter, which is a schema/description failure rather than a missing behavioral note.

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 for both parameters. It clarifies note_id as the anchor note whose related items are returned, but never explains the 'limit' parameter (default 5, cap, whether it truncates ranked results) or note_id's expected format/id source. Half the parameters remain 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 and result: ranked 'you might want to link these' suggestions of other notes/canvases with shared tags, anchored on note_id. It also gestures at how it relates to siblings by naming note_graph/note_backlinks, but only in the context of the plan gate rather than stating the conceptual difference (similarity suggestions vs. fixed structural relations).

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?

'you might want to link these' suggestions clearly signals the use case (discovering potential links), which is enough for an agent to pick this over list_notes or search_notes. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over get_note_backlinks or get_note_graph, so the selection logic is left to inference.

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