related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the specific set of returned data, including a concrete limit (up to 10 tag-shared notes), which is useful behavioral context. It doesn't mention error handling or side effects, but the read-only nature is implied.

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 packs all key information into a clear structure, with the core phrase front-loaded followed by a colon-separated list. No redundant words.

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 tool is moderately complex, but the description covers the main output categories and a limit. However, the lack of parameter formatting details and any error behavior makes it slightly incomplete. With an output schema present, return values may be covered elsewhere.

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 schema has no description for the parameter, and the tool description doesn't explain the expected format of 'name_or_path'. The parameter name itself hints at accepting either a note name or path, but the description doesn't specify ambiguity resolution, extensions, or vault-relative paths, leaving the agent to infer.

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 defines the tool's action ('Graph neighborhood of a note') and enumerates the exact outputs (resolved wiki-links, unresolved targets, backlinks, tag-shared notes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_note or search, which serve different purposes.

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 need note relationships, not content retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it has clear context but lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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