query_neighbors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does convey that this is a pure read and that both edge directions are included with relation type. It says nothing about behavior for a nonexistent or isolated uid (empty result vs error), nor about permissions or result size for high-degree nodes.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and scope. The entry-field enumeration mildly duplicates the existing output schema, but it is compact and does no harm.

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 one-parameter read tool with an output schema already describing return values, the description covers scope, edge direction, and relation typing adequately. The only meaningful gap is error/empty-result behavior, which is a minor omission at this complexity.

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 0% — the single 'uid' parameter has no description. The description partially compensates by implying the uid identifies 'a vault node', but it doesn't say whether it is a bare uid, a path, or a prefixed identifier, nor where such a uid comes from (e.g. generate_uid or find_nodes).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the direct neighbors of a vault node') and pins down scope with 'one hop only', which implicitly separates it from multi-hop siblings like query_path and query_related. It never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

'One hop only' implies the boundary against traversal tools, giving implied usage guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative tool is named. An agent must infer that query_path is the right call for deeper traversal.

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