instance_neighbourhood

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 one genuinely useful behavior: each relation returns 20 items first with the remainder given as counts, so the agent knows results are sampled and may be incomplete. It says nothing about read-only nature, whether the 20-item cap can be paged past, or the direction/semantics of the connections.

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 dense sentence front-loads what is returned and then appends the truncation rule; every clause carries information. It is terse enough that the semicolon-joined structure slightly compresses the pagination caveat, but nothing 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?

For a 2-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sketches the return shape well enough (fields, connected objects, 20 per relation plus counts). The notable gap is that it never says whether or how an agent can fetch beyond the first 20, leaving the tool's completeness limits ambiguous.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the same provenance hints the description repeats. The description adds no new meaning about node identity, saved_as scoping, or format 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?

The description names the resource precisely: an object's fields plus the objects connected to it in the data, i.e. the neighbourhood graph of one instance. That implicitly separates it from siblings like object_fields (fields only) and list_relations (relations only), but it never names or contrasts 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?

It states where the inputs come from ('node id from find_instances or the last result'), but that is schema-level provenance, not usage guidance. There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus object_fields, object_rows, or list_relations, and no exclusions.

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