detect_note_clusters

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the required environment variable and graph-analysis approach, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or how failures (e.g., missing vault path) are handled.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the necessary prerequisite without unnecessary detail. Every part 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?

For a tool with only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core concept but omits expected return values and edge-case behavior. Given the complexity of graph analysis, additional context about output semantics (e.g., what a cluster looks like) would be helpful.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for vaultId and minClusterSize. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance it.

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 detects communities/clusters of related notes using graph analysis, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_similar_notes or get_most_connected_notes by focusing on clusters/communities rather than pairwise similarity or ranking.

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 gives a prerequisite (OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH must be set) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like semantic_search or find_similar_notes. Usage context is implied by the description itself but lacks exclusions or alternative references.

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