Jobs-tools-knowledgeBase-getGuideNetwork

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it mention authentication, rate limits, or potential costs of fetching the complete network. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but that is only implicit.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence states the action and result with no filler. It earns a high score for efficiency.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, but its low complexity (zero parameters) reduces the burden. The description conveys the shape of the response (nodes/edges representing notes and relationships) and the full-network scope, though it could mention whether isolated notes are included.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to explain; the description correctly offers no parameter guidance, earning the baseline for a parameterless tool. It adds meaningful output context by mentioning nodes/edges and relationships.

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?

Description opens with the specific verb 'Get' and a concrete resource: 'guide note graph'. It further specifies the graph contains nodes/edges and represents the 'complete Zettelkasten knowledge network', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like getTree or getPage.

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 phrase 'for visualization and analysis' gives a clear intended use case, but it does not compare with sibling tools such as getTree or getZettelkastenInsights nor state when not to use it. This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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