graph_neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context by detailing the traversal behavior with direction, depth, and edge filters. It does not contradict annotations and provides sufficient insight for a safe read operation.

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 front-loads the purpose. No unnecessary words, but it could be slightly more structured by listing key parameters or usage notes.

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 (9 parameters, output schema exists), the description provides a high-level understanding but lacks detail on parameter usage and interpretation. An output schema covers return values, but the description could be more complete regarding parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'direction, depth, and edge filters' but does not describe all 9 parameters, such as startEntities, nodeKinds, limit, etc. The added value is minimal.

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's purpose: 'Graph tool for adjacency questions: traverse outward from one or more start entities with explicit direction, depth, and edge filters.' It specifies the verb 'traverse' and the resource 'graph neighbors', and distinguishes from sibling tools like graph_path by focusing on neighbor exploration rather than path finding.

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 implies usage for adjacency exploration but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like graph_path or other graph tools. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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