get_link_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It claims the graph is 'complete', yet the maxNodes parameter allows truncation to a default of 500 nodes, which is not mentioned. It also omits details about return structure, pagination, or performance implications for large vaults.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary clauses. Every word contributes to conveying the tool's core function.

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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description leaves critical gaps: it does not explain the JSON shape of 'nodes and edges', how maxNodes affects the 'complete' claim, or how this graph tool relates to the more specific link-focused siblings. The tool likely needs more behavioral context to be used correctly.

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 100%, with maxNodes clearly documented as 'Maximum number of nodes to include (default: 500)'. The description adds no further parameter detail, meeting the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 clearly states 'Get the complete link graph of the vault as nodes and edges', specifying a distinct verb and resource. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_outlinks and get_backlinks that focus on individual link lists rather than the full graph.

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 description implies usage when a complete vault-wide graph is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_outlinks, get_backlinks, or find_orphans. There are no when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.

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