map_neighbors

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

With no annotations, the description takes full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It honestly states that edges come from static analysis, that 'resolved:false' edges are name-match guesses, and that any edge can be stale or miss dynamic dispatch. It also mentions the token budget and truncation behavior, providing excellent 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 and mostly concise, front-loading the core purpose. It includes essential details about usage and limitations without excessive verbosity, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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 (6 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavioral aspects, limitations, and integration with sibling tools. It lacks explicit mention of the response shape, but the purpose and limitations are clear enough for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description provides high-level context for the tool but does not elaborate on individual parameters like depth, maxNodes, or direction beyond what is in the schema. Since schema coverage is 50%, the description partially compensates by explaining the tool's overall behavior, but it doesn't fully clarify parameter semantics for all six parameters.

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: exploring the static relationship graph around one node, listing specific edge types (callers/callees, imports, inheritance, containment). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool nav_references by positioning itself as a cheaper, instant alternative for understanding dependency shape.

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 explicitly advises to call this BEFORE nav_references for cheap dependency shape, and to verify specific edges with nav_references or nav_callHierarchy later. This provides clear when-to-use and when-to-avoid guidance, including alternatives.

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