get_neighbors

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It details the return format (center node, list of neighbors, connecting edge info, counts) and explains parameter behavior (direction options, edge_type filtering, limit). However, it omits behaviors like error handling when the node_id is missing or a default limit of 50, but overall provides substantial transparency.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage guidelines, args, returns, examples). It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value, and the most critical information is 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 complexity (4 params, no annotations, presence of an output schema) the description is sufficiently complete: it covers purpose, parameter semantics, usage boundaries, return format, and provides multiple examples. The absence of error behavior or rate limits is a minor gap.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all four parameters in the 'Args' section with intent, default values, and examples, adding significant meaning beyond the schema property titles and types.

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 tool's verb and resource: 'Get neighboring nodes connected to a given node.' It prominently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like `search_nodes_by_label` and `execute_gql`, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use ('when you have a node ID and want to see what it connects to') and when-not-to-use ('finding nodes by property' or 'complex multi-hop queries'), with clear alternatives named.

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