hyperspace_get_neighbors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it does convey that this is a read-style exploration that returns neighboring nodes as JSON, which is useful. It does not disclose permissions, behavior for a missing collection/id, what the layer parameter implies behaviorally, or any limits on traversal.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action and prerequisites front-loaded; the return-value sentence earns its place since no output schema exists. Minimal waste.

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?

Adequate for a 4-parameter read tool but leaves real gaps: no output schema, no annotations, and nothing on error conditions or what 'layer' means for results. An agent could call it, but not with high confidence about edge cases.

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 75%, so most parameters are documented in the schema already. The description only reinforces that collection and id are required and says nothing about layer or limit, so it adds little beyond the schema.

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?

A specific verb-plus-resource ('Explore local connectivity of a concept in the vector index graph') that an agent can distinguish from search or insert siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with hyperspace_graph_traverse or hyperspace_explore_graph, which are the closest neighbors.

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?

'Explore local connectivity' implies a one-hop neighbor lookup, so usage is inferrable, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative such as hyperspace_graph_traverse for multi-hop walks.

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