get_entity_neighbors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns related entities, typed relationships, and evidence spans, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not mention any authentication requirements or rate limits, but the tool appears safe.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. Every phrase earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains that the tool returns related entities, typed relationships, and evidence spans. It covers the tool's core functionality and return values, making it complete for an agent to understand what it does.

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 100%, so the description adds limited extra meaning. The mention of 'CITES, INFLUENCES, etc.' provides context but does not explain parameter syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., max_hops bounds).

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 verb ('find everything connected'), resource ('knowledge graph'), and scope ('given a concept or entity name'). It also lists the return format (related entities and typed relationships with evidence spans), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_vault which likely perform full-text search.

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 implies when to use (exploring connections from a starting entity) but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. Sibling tools like search_vault could be used for different queries, but no guidance is given.

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