refs

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

Annotations already signal read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description adds the detail about soft edges being included only when requested. This is useful, but does not disclose other behaviors like result ordering, pagination, or the structure of the returned relations. Given the annotation coverage, the omission is mitigated, but not fully addressed.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words, clearly stating the core function and the soft-edge condition. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, which is good, though it sacrifices depth for brevity.

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 complexity of 7 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the one-sentence description is far from complete. It fails to explain the return format, the meaning of most parameters, or any edge cases, making it insufficient for an agent to reliably invoke the tool correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, but it only hints at the 'dir' parameter (direction of relations) and the 'include_soft' parameter via the soft edges comment. Parameters like rel, as_of, max_chars, and response_format are left unexplained, leaving agents to guess their meaning and usage.

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 that the tool returns relations pointing to or from a given node, using specific verbs and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'neighborhood' or 'trace', which might overlap in function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., 'neighborhood' or 'trace'). The only usage hint is about soft edges being included on request, but no contextual conditions or alternatives are mentioned.

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