Get a note + its 1-hop graph neighborhood

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds behavioral detail: it returns three specific buckets (outbound resolved wikilinks, inbound backlinks with count, tag-cluster siblings excluding outbound/inbound). This goes beyond annotations, but does not disclose potential performance or error behavior.

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: first states functionality, second explains advantage and use case. No filler, front-loaded with key information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values. It does so by naming the three buckets and their composition. It also mentions max_per_bucket parameter implicitly. However, it omits details like format of resolved wikilinks or count representation, but still sufficient 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 coverage is 100%, with descriptions for all three parameters (path, title, max_per_bucket). The description repeats the bucket structure but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 it returns a note's immediate graph neighborhood (outbound wikilinks, inbound backlinks, tag-cluster siblings) in one call. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning it replaces a chain of calls (read_note → backlinks → outbound → resolve_wikilink).

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 explicitly states it's designed for RAG-style 'give the LLM enough context to reason about THIS note', which implies when to use. It contrasts with the alternative chain of multiple calls, but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives beyond the implied chain.

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