neighbours

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape ('each line names the edge TYPE and which way it points' with the `—[type]→` / `←[type]—` notation) plus the complete edge vocabulary. It stops short of stating read-only safety, result-count limits, or pagination behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose, then layers differentiation and output format. Every sentence carries information, though the dense middle sentence enumerating all twelve edge types is heavy and partially duplicated by the schema.

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?

For a listing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers output format and sibling differentiation well. The only real gap is the undocumented `initiative` parameter, which neither the schema nor the description explains.

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 67%; the description restates that `edge_type` accepts comma-separated values and that omitting it returns all types, but the schema already says this. The `initiative` parameter has no schema description and is never mentioned in the description, so the gap is not compensated.

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 and resource ('List every node ONE HOP from a node'), and pins the scope precisely: both directions, all twelve edge types. It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools `drill` and `between`, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternatives with conditions: `drill` covers only the derived_from/part_of tree, `between a b` answers about a specific pair, while this tool surfaces contradictions and supersessions that `drill` would miss. The when-to-use decision is fully spelled out.

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