get_most_connected_notes

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the environment requirement for OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, return format, or potential side effects, though the verb 'get' implies a safe read operation. The omission of output details is notable since no output schema is provided.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and a critical environment prerequisite. No redundant wording or filler; every word contributes to the core message.

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 is minimally viable: it states what the tool does and the environment requirement, but lacks details about the return structure, how metrics are computed, or when to use this tool versus graph-focused siblings. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, more contextual guidance would improve completeness, yet the core purpose is clear enough for straightforward 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?

The input schema fully describes all three parameters with detailed descriptions and an enum for metric, so the description adds little beyond what is already structured. The description's mention of 'link count or PageRank' actually under-covers the metric parameter by omitting 'backlinks', which is a minor inconsistency. Baseline 3 applies due to high schema coverage.

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 the most connected notes and specifies the ranking options as 'link count or PageRank'. This identifies a distinct purpose from sibling tools like get_note_connections, which targets connections for a specific note. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings and omits the 'backlinks' metric from the schema enum.

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?

Provides a key prerequisite by noting that OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH must be set for the targeted vault. No guidance is given on when to choose this tool over alternatives like get_note_connections or find_path_between_notes, nor are any exclusions mentioned. The usage context is implied but not fully articulated.

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