graph_neighbors

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavioral semantics: viability is derived from connectivity, fresh connections increase trust, and a bare node fades. It also flags the id-resolution limitation. These details materially shape an agent's expectations without contradicting the annotations.

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 front-loads the purpose, then packs edge types, viability semantics, and id constraints into a compact, scannable structure. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the Args section is minimal and non-redundant.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke it correctly: what it returns, how to obtain a valid node_id, and what id resolution caveats apply. No critical context is missing.

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 100% for node_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real value by specifying that 4-char prefixes are not resolved and that the id can be either a memory id or a code-anchor id. This is more than a restatement of the schema property.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Inspect a node in the memory knowledge graph: its kind, typed edges, and viability.' It enumerates the edge types and explicitly differentiates this graph-neighbor inspection from related tools like graph_link or memory_get by focusing on connectivity and viability.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: when you need a node's kind, typed edges, and viability. It also provides concrete input constraints ('4-char prefixes are NOT resolved here, pass a full id'). It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusion cases, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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