neighborhood

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden alone. It discloses one useful behavioral constraint — the depth cap of 4 — but says nothing about whether the call is read-only, how large the result may get, or performance implications of deeper walks. As a read-style graph query with an output schema, this is a modest gap rather than a severe one.

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?

One front-loaded sentence states the tool's essence, followed by a compact args block. Nothing is padded, and the core definition appears before any parameter detail.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose and both parameters adequately. The remaining gap is routing guidance relative to sibling graph tools, which is not addressed.

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, and it does: both parameters are explained, and the depth parameter gains the max-4 constraint that does not appear in the schema at all. This is more than the schema alone provides, though it omits what happens at the boundary or how depth interacts with sparse clusters.

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 resource and operation: the subgraph within N hops of a capture in the connection graph, described as its 'local knowledge cluster'. This is clearly distinguishable from most siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the related find_connections, surface_connections, or find_path tools.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the connection-related siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer from the phrase 'local knowledge cluster' that this is a breadth-oriented traversal rather than a pairwise or path query.

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