build_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (returning neighbors) but does not specify whether it is read-only, side effects, error handling, or output structure. The minimal 'return' phrasing implies a read operation, but no additional context is given.

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 a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the essential action. However, it is borderline too sparse, lacking any elaboration that might justify additional detail. It earns a high conciseness score for efficiency, but not a 5 due to under-specification.

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 one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return format, clarify the meaning of '1-hop', or provide any usage context. Given the existence of sibling tools, the description is incomplete because it offers no guidance on when this tool is appropriate.

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 input schema has one required parameter (permalink) with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what permalink is, its format, or its role in the operation. Since coverage is low, the description was expected to compensate but fails to add any semantic value 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?

The description clearly states the tool returns a note plus its 1-hop linked neighbors, using a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('note') with a defined scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search, recall, recent, and remember, which serve different purposes.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, intended scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based solely on the function description.

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