find_connections

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses stub exclusion behavior, optional includeStubs, and response wrapping with context.next_actions. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or mention any side effects.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second adds optional return format and response wrapping, third explains stub exclusion. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 adequately covers key aspects: purpose, parameters, response format, and follow-up hints. Without an output schema, it provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. Slight miss on explicit performance or auth hints.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining the default behavior of excludeStubs and the response structure including next_actions hints.

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 'Find notes linked to (from or to) a given note, up to N hops,' specifying action, resource, and constraints. It distinguishes from siblings like find_path_between and detect_themes by noting follow-up suggestions.

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 explicit context for usage, including follow-up actions like clustering or path tracing. It does not explicitly state when not to use but offers alternative suggestions in the response context.

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