graph_neighbors

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

The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations already establish the safety profile, so the description adds useful traversal semantics: default depth and the meaning of out, in, and both. It does not describe limits, pagination, or what shape the returned neighborhood takes, leaving some behavioral context unstated beyond the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that introduces the tool before explaining the direction modes. Every clause earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only traversal tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly in most cases: it covers depth default and direction semantics. The main gap is the unstated meaning of the required id parameter, but the annotations already handle safety and the core behavior is otherwise clear.

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 carry parameter meaning. It does well on direction, defining each enum value, and on depth by stating the default, but it says nothing about the required id parameter beyond its name, leaving one of three parameters semantically underspecified.

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 resource (graph neighbors) and the traversal scope (up to depth hops, with direction modes). It does not, however, distinguish this tool from a related sibling such as graph_context, so an agent still has to infer when this specific neighbor query is preferable.

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 defines the direction values and the default depth, which helps with invocation but is parameter guidance rather than tool-selection guidance. It provides no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool routing against siblings like graph_context or search.

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