get_note_connections

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a prerequisite (OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH) and a specific error format ('note not found: <path>'), and clarifies the distinction between 'found but no connections' and 'no path between endpoints'. This is substantial behavioral context, though it does not mention rate limits, return structure, or mutation behavior (though 'Get' implies read-only).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every clause adds value. It is concise without being underspecified.

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 the main purpose, prerequisite, and error behavior. There is no output schema, so the description does not reveal the exact response format, but it gives enough for an agent to select and interpret the tool's core behavior. The tool is relatively simple, and the description is complete for typical 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds a small amount of meaning by clarifying what 'connections' includes (outgoing links, backlinks, tags), but this is not essential for parameter understanding. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 what the tool does with a specific verb and resource: 'Get all connections for a note'. It enumerates the types of connections (outgoing links, backlinks, tags) and distinguishes from sibling tools like get_file_contents and find_path_between_notes.

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 provides clear context by stating the prerequisite (OBSIDIAN_VAULT_PATH) and by differentiating its error behavior from 'no path between endpoints', which hints at a distinction from path-finding tools. However, it does not explicitly state alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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