whodb_platform_lineage_neighbors

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds useful scope ('immediate' neighbors, selected hosted project) and clarifies that workspace overrides do not change defaults, though it omits return shape and pagination details.

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?

Two tightly written sentences: the first states the action, the second handles workspace targeting. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only lineage lookup, the description covers the core operation and workspace override behavior. With no output schema, it still does not describe the returned neighbor structure or guide choice among sibling lineage tools, leaving clear inferential gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents node_id, node_type, fields, and workspace. The description only summarizes workspace targeting and adds no syntax or meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('immediate lineage neighbors for one node'), making the operation clear. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from sibling lineage tools such as whodb_platform_lineage or whodb_platform_project_lineage, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

It gives context for one node and describes per-call workspace targeting with session-default fallback, but offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives among the many lineage siblings. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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