slipbox_find_central_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It conveys a non-mutating query ('Find') and explains the central-note concept via incoming/outgoing links, but it does not state how results are ordered, how ties are handled, or whether 'limit' truncates a fully computed ranking. These are moderate gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps explanatory text to two useful sentences before the Args block. It is compact and readable, though the Args section mostly duplicates the schema's default value rather than adding new 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?

For a one-optional-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential purpose, the definition of central notes, and the limit parameter. It does not detail sorting or algorithm internals, but those are unlikely to be required for correct invocation; the main missing piece is explicit sibling-tool routing.

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 has only one parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds 'Maximum results (default: 10)', which clarifies that limit means result count and matches the schema default. It provides no guidance on allowed ranges, zero/negative values, or truncation behavior, but the parameter is simple enough that this is only a minor gap.

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 opens with 'Find the most connected notes in the Zettelkasten', a specific verb+resource statement, then defines central notes as hubs with the most incoming and outgoing links. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like find_orphaned_notes or find_similar_notes by focusing on graph centrality.

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?

'Good candidates for hub notes' implies the intended use case of identifying key knowledge hubs. However, it never explicitly tells an agent when to prefer this tool over the many sibling search/find tools, nor when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than fully actionable.

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