find_bridge_notes

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, potentially expensive, or has any side effects. The user is left without information about performance or safety implications.

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 concise, with the main action in the first sentence and a clarifying explanation in the second. There is no unnecessary verbosity or redundant information.

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 description is adequate for a simple graph-analysis tool, but it lacks context about expected output, edge cases, or how it relates to other graph tools. Given the tool's simplicity, the provided information is acceptable but not fully complete.

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 descriptions for 'limit' and 'folder' are present and cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is met. The tool description itself adds no extra meaning about how these parameters affect the articulation point computation, but the schema is sufficient.

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 finds articulation points in the note graph, and the second sentence explains the graph-theoretic meaning. It is specific enough to distinguish it from general search or stats tools, though the name 'bridge' vs 'articulation point' could cause slight ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_link_clusters, graph_data, or link_stats. It only defines what the tool does, leaving the user to infer appropriate use cases.

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