find_link_clusters

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals the connected-components algorithm but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might occur, or any performance implications. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return format, but the description still lacks explicit safety or side-effect information.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the algorithmic detail is placed second, which is optimal for scanning. Every word adds value.

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 the presence of an output schema, the return format does not need description. The two optional parameters are well-covered by the schema, and the description explains the tool's core function and method. The only gap is the lack of explicit read-only confirmation, but that is a minor omission for a 'detect' tool. Overall, it is adequate for correct invocation.

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%, and both parameters (folder, min_cluster_size) already have descriptive text in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies—it neither enhances nor harms parameter understanding.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Detect clusters of densely connected notes.' It further clarifies the algorithmic approach ('Uses connected components') and the intended outcome ('find isolated knowledge groups'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_similar_notes (similarity-based) and find_orphan_notes (unlinked notes), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 for detecting isolated clusters but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like link_stats or graph_data. There are no exclusions or scenarios where a different tool would be more appropriate, leaving the agent to infer context.

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