slipbox_get_linked_notes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains what the tool returns (linked notes), how direction affects the result set, and the default 'both' behavior. The imperative 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and no conflicting destructive behavior is suggested.

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, followed by a usage hint, a compact direction list, and an Args block. Every sentence adds useful information; there is no filler or over-elaboration.

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?

With an output schema available and only two parameters, the description covers the behavioral purpose, parameter semantics, directions, and default value. The only minor gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to prefer sibling graph-analysis tools, but this does not block 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 0%, so parameter documentation falls entirely on the description. It explains note_id as the starting point and direction with its allowed values and default. It could add more constraints for note_id, but the provided semantics are sufficient for a two-parameter tool.

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 starts with a precise verb-resource pair: 'Get notes linked to or from a specific note.' It defines outgoing/incoming/both directions and frames the tool as knowledge-graph exploration, clearly distinguishing it from single-note retrieval or search tools like slipbox_get_note or slipbox_search_notes.

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?

'Use this to explore the knowledge graph around a note' gives a clear context for when to call it, and the direction definitions clarify the kind of traversal intended. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name a sibling alternative, but the intended use is evident.

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