Related notes

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

With no annotations, the description does meaningful work: it discloses the five signals used and, importantly, that semantic similarity only applies 'when embeddings are enabled' — a conditional capability most tools omit. It does not state that results are read-only, how they are ranked, or whether the operation is expensive, but the mechanism disclosure is well above the norm for an unannotated 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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first front-loads the result-category breakdown; the second delivers usage. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition covers purpose, mechanism, and usage adequately; the enumerated reasons effectively preview the return shape. It is only missing result ordering/ranking and any sibling comparison, which are minor gaps rather than blockers.

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%, so 'ref' (path/title/alias) and 'limit' (max 25, default 8) are fully documented structurally. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond the schema, 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 states a specific verb+resource ('Find notes related to a given note') and enumerates the substantive result categories (direct links, shared link-neighbors, rarity-weighted tags, unlinked title mentions, semantic similarity). It is clearly distinguished from generic search by its relation-based scope, but it never names the overlapping sibling note_links, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

It gives two concrete use cases ('pull surrounding context before working on a topic' and 'find where a new note should link'), which is clear positive guidance. It does not state when to prefer note_links or search_notes instead, or any exclusions, so the when-not side is missing.

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