Note connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the return contents (resolved and broken outgoing links, backlinks), which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about behavior for an unresolvable ref, read-only guarantees, or any limits on graph depth or result size.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the return contents are front-loaded before the usage hint. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming what comes back. It is nearly complete for a single-parameter read tool, missing only edge-case behavior (an unknown or broken ref) that would round it out.

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 100% and there is a single parameter ('ref'), so the schema already explains that it accepts a note path, title, or alias. The description adds no syntax, disambiguation, or format guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Show a note's graph neighborhood') and enumerates the two things returned: outgoing wikilinks (resolved and broken) plus backlinks. That is far more precise than a tautology. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the nearby sibling 'related_notes', which an agent could easily confuse with this graph-neighborhood view.

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 to explore context around a topic' gives an implied purpose but no explicit when-to-use conditions, prerequisites, or named alternatives such as related_notes or search_notes. The agent is left to infer which of the three link/related tools to pick.

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