get_neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of how token_budget truncates output, no relation_filter behavior, no error behavior for an unknown node. It contributes essentially no behavioral context of its own.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; 'direct' and 'with edge details' both carry weight. It is arguably too terse for a 6-parameter tool, but nothing in it is wasted.

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?

Six parameters, zero required, and no output schema, meaning the description carries the full burden of telling the agent what comes back. It does not describe the response shape (neighbor list, edge metadata), nor the effect of token_budget or relation_filter values, leaving meaningful gaps for a graph-traversal 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 83%, so the schema already documents repo, as_of, node_id, token_budget, and relation_filter. The description adds no syntax, format, or allowed-value detail (e.g., valid relation types) beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb (Get), resource (neighbors), scope qualifier (direct), and return content (with edge details). It is distinguishable from siblings like shortest_path or query_graph by the word 'direct', though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing to siblings such as shortest_path (for traversal) or query_graph (for filtered/deeper queries). The agent must infer that this is the one-hop lookup.

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