Explore a concept and its graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return shape (the note plus outbound-linked notes and inbound backlinks), which is real behavioral content. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, behavior when the concept is missing, truncation or size limits on large graphs, or how depth affects result volume.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the output shape is front-loaded and the usage cue follows immediately. Nothing is restated from the title or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return values, and it does so adequately (note + outbound + inbound neighbours). With only two fully documented parameters and no annotations, the main remaining gap is edge-case behavior (missing concept, large-graph limits), which keeps it short of a 5.

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 100%, and the schema itself explains both 'depth' (1 = direct neighbours, 2 = two hops) and 'concept' (title or slug) with an example. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return a note together with the notes it links to... and the notes that link back to it') and explicitly scopes it to graph traversal around a single concept. It also implicitly separates itself from the flat-search sibling by contrasting with 'a flat search'. An agent can tell what it produces without opening the schema.

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?

'Use to walk the knowledge graph around a concept instead of a flat search' gives a clear usage context and an implicit exclusion (flat search). It does not name the actual sibling tool (search_knowledge) or state when-not to use it (e.g., when you only need the note body, use get_page), so the guidance is clear but not fully routing.

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