twining_neighbors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions depth limit and filtering, which is helpful, but it does not state whether the tool is read-only, if it returns directed edges, or any performance implications. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 concise: two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core functionality and then adds a use case. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has three parameters and no output schema, the description explains traversal and filtering but does not describe the return format (e.g., list of entities or edges) or any default behavior beyond depth. It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.

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 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains each parameter. The description adds minimal value by stating 'max 3' for depth (already in schema) and 'filtering by relation type' (already in schema). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 traverses neighbors from an entity with a depth limit and supports filtering. It uses a specific verb 'traverse' and resource 'neighbors', but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'twining_graph_query' which might also do graph traversal.

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 notes it is 'useful for understanding how entities connect', which implies a use case. However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., twining_graph_query) nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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