Explore the link graph

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

The annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: it explains that a concept input resolves to every project touching that concept, which tells the agent how the tool behaves for non-note inputs. It says nothing about result ordering, the limit's effect, or truncation.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core capability in the first clause. The concept example and the use-case line each add distinct information rather than restating the opening.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully lists the returned relationship categories, so the agent knows roughly what to expect. It omits how the limit behaves and whether results are paged or ordered, which is the main remaining gap for a two-parameter 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 50%: 'note' is documented but 'limit' has no schema description, and the description never mentions limit either. It does reinforce that the note argument accepts hubs and concept names, mildly extending the schema's own wording. With half the parameters undocumented, this is adequate but not compensating for the gap.

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 concrete retrieval target and enumerates exactly what comes back: outgoing links, backlinks, and topic-sharing notes. That is far more specific than a name restatement and clearly separates it from reading tools like brain_read. It stops short of naming which sibling to prefer when the agent wants a broader search (e.g. brain_search), so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

'Use it to hop sideways between projects' states the intended context of use, and the OAuth example shows the concept-input scenario concretely. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so it gives clear context but no negative guidance.

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