get_neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., return format, pagination, or edge-case behavior). It does not contradict annotations, so a 3 reflects adequate coverage with annotations doing the heavy lifting.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the core purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information, earning a perfect score for clarity and efficiency.

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 tool with a clear schema and annotations, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. It does not specify output schema, but none is provided, and the nature of 'incoming and outgoing graph relationships' is likely understandable. Minor gaps (e.g., error conditions) are not critical given the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, meaning every parameter is documented in the input schema. The description gives high-level context (incoming/outgoing relationships) that aligns with the 'uri' parameter, but it adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema carries full parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('graph relationships for one OKF concept'). It clearly defines the scope (incoming/outgoing relationships) and distinguishes it from siblings like get_graph (full graph) or get_subgraph (subgraph extraction), though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 other graph-related siblings such as find_paths, get_graph, or get_subgraph. It does not state when this tool is preferred or mention 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.