get_linking_notes

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

The description explains the three link types and return format, which is adequate given no annotations. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (none expected), permissions, or error handling (e.g., if path is invalid). Read-only nature is implied but not stated.

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 well-organized: a main sentence, a bullet list of link types, and an explicit Args/Returns section. Every sentence adds value, and there is no 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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, and return format adequately for a simple lookup tool. Minor missing details (e.g., error behavior) could be added, but overall it is complete enough for effective use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining that 'path' is the path to a note file. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare title and type.

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 retrieves linking information for a note, specifying three distinct relationship types (link_to, linked_by, related). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like get_note and get_note_paths by focusing on link relationships.

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 implicitly defines when to use: for retrieving link relationships of a note. It does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or compare to siblings, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage.

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