get_neighbors

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

The description is minimal and does not disclose important behavioral details such as performance characteristics, ordering of results, pagination, or treatment of edge types. Annotations are absent, so the description carries full burden but fails to provide sufficient transparency.

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 very concise (one line), which is efficient but comes at the cost of completeness. It front-loads the purpose but omits essential details, making it borderline under-specified.

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 annotations, no output schema, four parameters with zero descriptions, and sibling tools that suggest complex graph operations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the return format, the meaning of 'edge_types' and 'repo', or how depth works, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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 description does not explain any of the four parameters beyond the mention of 'depth'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate, but it offers no meaning for 'id', 'repo', or 'edge_types'. The agent cannot infer parameter semantics from this description alone.

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 it returns nodes within 'depth' hops in both directions, using the intuitive phrase 'what touches this?'. This effectively conveys the core functionality and distinguishes it from siblings like 'shortest_path' (which finds paths) or 'build_graph' (which constructs full graph).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'shortest_path' or 'find_nodes'. There is no mention of when not to use it, prerequisites, or context where it might be inappropriate.

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