get_link_graph_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds some context with 'traversable' and the data shape, but it does not explain traversal semantics (e.g., depth meaning, cycle handling, whether only reachable notes appear), rate limits, or side effects. The disclosure is minimal for an unannotated tool.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The inline details about direction and output data are useful and free of filler, though the mix of parameter notes and output shape could be slightly better organized.

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?

Even with an output schema present, the description lacks parameter semantics for depth and vault, usage guidance relative to sibling link-related tools, and behavioral context about traversal. For a graph tool with four parameters and no annotations, this is not fully complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'direction' with the allowed values 'outgoing' | 'incoming' | 'both' and implies 'root' via 'starting from a note', but it leaves 'depth' and 'vault' undefined. Only one of the four parameters is meaningfully described.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Return a traversable link graph starting from a note.' It clarifies the graph structure (nodes and edges) and the direction options, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_backlinks_tool or list_notes_tool, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_backlinks_tool or get_broken_links_tool. The description implies use for traversing a link graph, but it never states explicit conditions, exclusions, or why an agent would pick this over a sibling.

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