get_neighbors

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

No annotations exist, so description bears full responsibility. It mentions 'ANY direction' (bidirectional traversal) but does not elaborate on computational cost, auth needs, or possible large result sets. The schema constraints (depth max 5, limit 200) are already present in the input schema.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Front-loaded with the action and critical behavioral trait ('ANY direction'). Every word 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?

For a simple tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a key use case. It does not mention error handling or edge cases (e.g., what if node_id is invalid), but these are compensable by the schema and expected agent behavior.

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 67% (depth and limit have descriptions; node_id lacks one). The overall description adds only a usage hint for node_id ('unknown symbol'), which provides marginal additional meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial coverage.

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?

Description states specific action ('Return nodes within depth hops in ANY direction') and provides a concrete use case ('explore context around an unknown symbol'). This clearly distinguishes it from directional siblings like get_callees and get_callers.

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 gives clear context for when to use ('explore context around an unknown symbol') and implies directionality. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool comparisons beyond the hint of 'ANY direction'.

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