link_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Get suggestions' but doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, how suggestions are generated (e.g., semantic similarity, keyword matching), what the output format is, or any performance considerations. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying inputs ('content or keywords') and output ('suggestions for notes').

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., how suggestions are generated, output format), usage guidelines relative to siblings, and parameter interactions. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more context to fully inform the agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it mentions 'keywords' and 'content' but doesn't explain their interplay or prioritization. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, though the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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: 'Get suggestions for notes that might be related to given content or keywords.' It specifies the action ('Get suggestions') and resource ('notes'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_notes' (which likely returns exact matches) or 'find_backlinks' (which finds explicit references). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'search_notes' beyond implying a 'relatedness' focus.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'link_notes' over 'search_notes' or 'find_backlinks', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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