neighbors

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool returns neighbors grouped by type, but it does not mention read-only status, performance implications, pagination, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a tool that likely returns a complex structured result.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality with no redundant words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 and potential overlap with siblings, the description lacks important details: the meaning of 'adjacent', the structure of the response, and the enumeration of edge families. It is not complete enough for an agent to use confidently.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the only parameter 'id'. The description does not explain what 'id' refers to (e.g., a node identifier in the graph). The parameter is left implicit, which may confuse agents unfamiliar with the domain.

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 that the tool returns all adjacent nodes of an id, grouped by edge family. This provides a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning edge family grouping. However, it could be more explicit about what 'adjacent nodes' means.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_context', 'expand', or 'pack_neighborhood'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases.

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