Build context

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

The readOnlyHint already covers the safety profile, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: matching notes are returned in full while neighbors are only pointers, which sets expectations about cost and result shape. It does not mention any limits or pagination on the hop expansion, keeping it from a 5.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the payoff (full content plus neighbor pointers) front-loaded before the routing advice. Nothing is repeated from the title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does reasonably well by distinguishing full content from pointers. The exact form of a "pointer" is left implicit, a small gap for what is essentially a read-aggregation tool.

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%, so both parameters are already documented, including max_notes' default and 1-10 bounds. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline.

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 (load/build) and resource (working context for a topic) and describes exactly what comes back: full content of top-matching notes plus one hop of wikilinked notes as pointers. An agent can tell this apart from search_notes and read_note without opening their schemas.

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?

"Prefer this over multiple search+read rounds when starting work on a topic" gives a clear triggering condition and implicitly names the alternatives it replaces. It stops short of an explicit exclusion (e.g. a single known note should use read_note), so it is strong rather than exhaustive.

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