neighbors

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'List the direct connections' without clarifying read-only nature, ordering, depth semantics ('direct' is clear but not elaborated), or any side effects. It doesn't mention what the output looks like (though an output schema exists), so the behavior is under-described.

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?

A single, precise sentence with zero waste. The essential verb and resource are front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for such a simple tool.

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 is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and an output schema exists, the description is minimal but technically sufficient to convey the core action. However, it omits any behavioral context (e.g., whether 'direct' means depth-1, whether it returns node IDs or objects, any performance implications). A slightly richer description would improve completeness, so it's adequate but not thorough.

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 description does not mention node_id at all. The parameter is named 'node_id' in the schema, which is self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no meaning about format, example, or accepted patterns. Since coverage is 0%, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 ('List') and resource ('direct connections of a node'). It clearly distinguishes the purpose from siblings like 'connect' (creating connections) and 'stats' (aggregate data). However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative, so it's clear but not maximally differentiating.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says what it does, not why an agent might pick it over siblings like 'remember' or 'review_queue'. No context about prerequisites, limitations, or when it would be inappropriate.

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