get_neighbors

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'neighbor subgraph' and does not mention truncation (max_nodes), direction handling, edge filtering, depth limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a traversal tool.

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 short sentence, which is concise in length but under-specified. It lacks the essential context needed for a 5-parameter tool, making it more an under-specification than a model of conciseness. The structure is not front-loaded with the most critical constraints.

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 the tool's complexity (5 parameters, graph traversal, output schema present), the description is severely incomplete. It does not mention truncation, direction, filtering, depth limits, or any behavior beyond the label. Even with the output schema covering return values, an agent cannot infer when or how to call this tool correctly from the description alone.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; id remains undocumented, and the tool description does not clarify it. The schema already explains depth, direction, max_nodes, and edge_filter, so the description contributes nothing extra.

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 states the tool fetches a 'neighbor subgraph from id with depth hops', which conveys a graph traversal purpose. However, it is vague about what a 'neighbor subgraph' includes (nodes, edges, filtering) and does not differentiate it from siblings like get_node or find_paths. It is not a tautology but lacks specificity.

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 use cases, when not to use it, or any context that would help an agent select it. The schema hints at parameters, but the description itself offers no decision support.

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