neighbors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and clearly discloses key behaviors: exclusion of the anchor memory, empty array for unknown ids, and active project scope enforcement. It stops short of stating read-only safety explicitly, but the described behavior is consistent and non-contradictory.

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 well-structured, with each sentence contributing distinct value: operation, usage trigger, unknown-id behavior, and scope guard. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers invocation, behavior, edge cases, and scope restrictions. An agent has enough context to call it correctly without additional information.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters, and it does: id is the anchor memory, k is the number of related memories to return. It does not specify bounds or formatting for k, but the schema default and the described behavior are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 operation—expand local context around a given memory id—and details the mechanism: return the k most related memories while excluding the anchor memory itself. It also contrasts itself with a 'whole-store dump,' making its narrow scope clear.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: use on-demand after recall surfaces a relevant hit, for bounded local expansion. It also states what it is not for ('not a whole-store dump'), though it does not enumerate all sibling alternatives.

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