Find related files

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

Annotations already establish this as a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false). The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail not in the annotations: long result sets are offloaded to a brain:// resource rather than returned inline. However, it is cryptic about what that resource is or how the caller should consume it, limiting the value.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though bordering on terse enough to obscure meaning.

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 tool with no output schema, 0% parameter coverage and only minimal annotations, the description omits what 'related' means, what the result set contains, how the brain:// resource is surfaced, and the role of repo_path. It is not sufficient for confident invocation.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It obliquely covers file_path ('a path') but says nothing about repo_path, its default, or why a caller would supply one — half the parameters remain undocumented in both places.

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 concrete action and resource: finding graph neighbours of a path, with the traversal order (direct then indirect) spelled out. It does not, however, distinguish itself from likely siblings such as impact_analysis or search_code, and 'Graph neighbours' is jargon the agent must interpret.

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?

There is no statement of when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisite (e.g. does it need the file to be indexed?). 'Direct then indirect' describes traversal order, not usage context, so the agent is left to infer when this is the right call.

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