nyarhi_neighbors

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

The description discloses that the output includes both nodes and edges, which is useful behavioral context. However, with no annotations provided, it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention edge cases, pagination, or error behavior.

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 is front-loaded with the action and scope. It contains no unnecessary words and is easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple and an output schema is present, so return-value documentation is not strictly required. Still, the description omits the optional `store` parameter semantics and any caveats about node non-existence or result limits, leaving a small but real gap in completeness.

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 description clarifies that `node_id` identifies the node whose neighbors are returned, adding meaning to that parameter. However, the `store` parameter is not mentioned at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description only partially compensates for missing parameter semantics.

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 the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'direct neighbors (nodes and edges)' scoped to `node_id`. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like `nyarhi_path` or `nyarhi_search` by specifying the exact graph adjacency query.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what it does, without mentioning exclusions, prerequisites, or a preferred context such as 'use when you need a node's immediate connections'.

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