graph_neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful domain context by listing the entity types that exist in the graph, but says nothing about traversal depth, how the limit interacts with node degree, or whether results are ordered or deduplicated.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the core operation front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is part of why the guidance gaps exist.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover safety. However, for a graph traversal with direction and edge-type filters, the description leaves the agent without any model of what a traversal returns or how 'richtung' changes the result — a meaningful gap for a 4-parameter tool.

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 only 50%: 'knoten' and 'kantentyp' have descriptions, while 'limit' and 'richtung' (the direction enum, arguably the most consequential parameter for a traversal tool) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description's list of node types loosely clarifies what 'knoten' can refer to but adds nothing on direction or edge-type semantics, so it does not compensate for the gap.

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 names a specific operation on a specific resource: neighbors of a node in the job graph. The parenthetical enumeration of node types (occupations, tasks, skills, jobs, industries, regions) makes the graph's scope concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with graph-adjacent siblings like search_knowledge or crosswalk, but the traversal semantics are distinctive enough to identify it.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_occupation or get_role_context, nor any prerequisites (e.g., needing a known node ID). The agent must infer from the word 'Nachbarn' that this is for graph exploration rather than search.

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