mcp-repo-graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the operation's scope ('one hop in each direction, with edge types'), which is useful, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output contains (though an output schema exists). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key information: 'All direct connections to and from a node' states the core purpose, followed by clarifying details ('one hop in each direction, with edge types'). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 moderate complexity (one parameter, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is partially complete. It explains the operation's scope but misses usage guidelines and behavioral details like error cases. The presence of an output schema means return values needn't be described, but other aspects like when to use it are lacking, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'node' parameter is the central point for finding connections, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Node' title. However, it doesn't specify the node's format, constraints, or examples, leaving the parameter only partially clarified. With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the minimal compensation reduces it to 3.

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 purpose: finding direct connections to and from a node with one hop in each direction and edge types. It uses specific verbs ('All direct connections') and identifies the resource ('a node'), making the function understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'trace' or 'graph_view', which might also involve node relationships.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer 'neighbours' over sibling tools such as 'trace' (which might show multi-hop paths) or 'graph_view' (which could offer broader visualization). There's no context on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage decisions unclear.

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