Get Link Graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: performance cost, return shape, and vault-scoping semantics. The 'Read-only' statement is consistent with the annotations, so there is no contradiction.

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 every sentence earns its place: graph definition, return shape, performance guidance, read-only confirmation, and vault selection. The most important scoping and routing information is front-loaded.

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 provides enough information for an agent to call the tool correctly: what the output contains, when to avoid it, how vault context is resolved, and how vaultPath affects behavior. An output schema exists, so detailed return typing is not the description's burden.

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 only parameter, vaultPath, has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining when it applies and that it overrides the session-active vault. It does not specify path format or expected values, leaving a small gap, but the core meaning is communicated.

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 verb and resource ('Build a full vault link graph'), defines the exact graph model (nodes for notes, directed edges for outbound links), and clearly differentiates itself from targeted siblings like links.backlinks and links.outgoing. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs.

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 explicitly warns that the tool is expensive for large vaults and recommends alternatives ('prefer links.backlinks, links.outgoing, or links.connections for targeted queries'). It also clarifies the active-vault behavior and that an explicit vaultPath overrides it, giving clear selection and invocation guidance.

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