Get Neighborhood

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds value by explaining that links are treated as undirected for hop counting, and that the output is a node list and edge list. This provides context beyond the annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words, front-loaded with key purpose and output format. Every word earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (node list and edge list). It misses format details (e.g., what fields each node/edge has) but overall is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's basic behavior.

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 100% with both parameters (hops, path) described. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., 'n-hop' implies hops). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already clarifies the parameters.

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?

Description clearly states verb ('Get'), resource ('n-hop subgraph around a note'), and specifies output ('explicit node list and edge list') with a key detail (undirected links). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_backlinks or get_context_bundle.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_backlinks (which also returns links). The description implies use for a full subgraph but doesn't state exclusion criteria or when not to use it.

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