slipbox_get_linked_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It explains the direction modes (outgoing, incoming, both) which is helpful, but it omits return format, pagination, error handling, or whether links are recursive. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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-organized, using bullets for directions and a clear Args block. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy.

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 two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, direction semantics, and parameter meaning. It lacks details on the return structure or possible failures, but is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 the description must explain parameters. It does so in the 'Args' section, defining note_id as 'ID of the note to explore from' and direction as 'One of outgoing/incoming/both (default: both)'. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema fields.

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 action: 'Get notes linked to or from a specific note.' This specifies both the verb and the resource, and it distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like search_notes or find_similar_notes by focusing on graph links.

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 line 'Use this to explore the knowledge graph around a note' provides clear use-case context. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the primary scenario is well communicated.

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