graph_related

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds the behavioral detail that it traverses outgoing and backlinks, but does not explain behavior like recursion, hops limit, or output format. This is acceptable but not thorough.

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?

One concise, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the core action and method.

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 simple read-only tool with well-documented schema and annotations, the description is adequate. It states the purpose and mechanism, though it could explicitly differentiate from graph_cross_project and mention vault-scope limitation.

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?

Both parameters (path and hops) have schema descriptions covering 100%, so the description adds little beyond the schema. The mention of wikilinks gives context for the path parameter but does not enhance semantics significantly.

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's function: finding related notes via wikilinks, specifying outgoing and backlinks. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read' or 'search', and from 'graph_cross_project' which likely handles cross-project 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 implies usage context—when you want to discover note relationships through wikilinks—but provides no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use it. It does not mention graph_cross_project or other related tools, so the agent relies on inference.

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