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 full burden. It explains that centrality is based on incoming and outgoing links, but does not disclose whether the operation is strictly read-only, what the return format is, or any prerequisites (e.g., indexed notes). This is adequate for a simple query but leaves some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief definition of 'central', and an Args block. Every sentence adds value with no repetition or filler.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains what the tool does and what 'central' means, but it does not describe the output format (e.g., list of note IDs vs. notes with scores) or any dependencies like an index. While the main use case is clear, the return behavior is not specified, leaving a minor gap.

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 description explicitly documents the only parameter 'limit' as 'Maximum results (default: 10)', which fully clarifies its purpose and default value. Since the schema itself provides no description and has 0% coverage, the description compensates completely for this 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find the most connected notes in the Zettelkasten.' It uses a specific verb ('find'), resource ('notes'), and scope ('most connected'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_similar_notes and find_orphaned_notes by focusing on connectivity/hub status.

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 clear context for use: 'Good candidates for hub notes' implies the tool is for identifying pivotal notes in the knowledge network. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous and sufficient for basic selection.

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