Query Context

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It meaningfully discloses that the return is navigation info rather than content itself, that details must be loaded via path pointers, and that skill_hint is only a suggestion overridden by skill_routes.yaml. This goes well beyond a simple query statement.

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 well organized into clear sections: purpose, when to call, when not to call, parameter, and return semantics. Each section earns its place, and the core navigation purpose 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?

For a one-parameter query tool with an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers invocation triggers, non-triggers, parameter meaning, return shape, and the crucial navigation-vs-content caveat. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It defines node_id as a graph node id, which adds real meaning beyond the bare string type, and also describes the return fields that help an agent understand what the parameter is used for.

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 uses the specific verb '查询' with the resource '节点的邻域导航信息' and clearly ties it to building an Agent's work context. It clearly defines what the tool does, but does not explicitly distinguish it from the sibling query_impact.

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 states when the tool must be called (first step for tasks involving existing nodes, and on Hook notifications) and when it is not needed (when neighborhood info is already held in a continuous session). It provides strong when/when-not guidance, though it does not name alternative tools.

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