get_related_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the algorithm (blend of tags, links, co-reference, co-citation), result format (note headers with score and reasons), and a key constraint ('the source note is never itself a candidate'). It is transparent about what the tool does and does not do, though it omits performance or rate limit details, which are not critical for this read-only operation.

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 three sentences long, no fluff. It front-loads the core functionality, follows with a use case, and ends with narrowing options and a constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains return format (note headers with score and reasons) and filtering parameters. It covers algorithm, constraints, and usage context. It is complete enough for correct invocation, though it doesn't explicitly mention pagination (offset/limit are in schema) or the required path parameter's format, which are minor gaps.

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 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining how parameters work together: 'Narrow the scored candidate pool with folder/tags/where/match (match governs tags; where conditions all apply).' This clarifies parameter semantics beyond the schema descriptions, earning an extra point.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Find the notes most related to a given note, ranked, without embeddings: a transparent blend of shared tags, direct links, shared out-links, and shared backlinks.' It specifies the verb (find), resource (notes related to a given note), and methodology, distinguishing it from siblings like search_notes_ranked (which may use embeddings) and get_links.

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 provides explicit use case guidance: 'Use it for associative recall - "I'm looking at X, what else is relevant?".' It also mentions narrowing options with folder/tags/where/match, helping the agent understand when to apply these parameters. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools like search_notes or find_by_tag, so it loses a point for lacking exclusions.

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