get_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'Fetch' implying read-only, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as safety, side effects, or rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks depth about what happens during traversal or the format of the subgraph.

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 three sentences, each contributing value: defining the action, specifying use case, and describing the output. No redundant or unnecessary information. Efficient and 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and no output schema, the description covers the return value ('nodes and edges as a serialized subgraph'). It could provide more detail on the subgraph structure or pagination, but it is sufficient for a simple neighborhood fetch.

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 the schema already describes both parameters. The description adds context (e.g., 'neighborhood' and 'serialized subgraph') but does not significantly enhance the meaning of node_id or max_depth beyond their schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'neighborhood around a specific memory node'. It distinguishes from siblings like query_graph by focusing on node ID and connected context. The return of nodes and edges as a serialized subgraph adds specificity.

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 clear context: 'Use when you already have a node ID and need its connected context.' This tells when to use. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools like query_graph, though the sibling list implies alternatives.

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