Graph neighborhood

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it uses BFS, returns nodes and edges, has a max depth of 4, and shares backend with knowledge-graph traversal. No contradictions with 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?

The description is two sentences with zero wasted words. It efficiently conveys the algorithm, scope, constraints, and backend relationship.

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 description mentions 'nodes + edges' but does not detail the response structure. There is no output schema, so a brief hint about the return format would improve completeness. However, for an experienced agent, the core behavior is adequately covered.

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 description coverage is 100%; the description repeats the schema's parameter descriptions ('Starting node id or label' and 'Traversal depth (default 2, max 4)') without adding new meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'BFS neighborhood around a graph node id or label — nodes + edges within a depth budget (max 4).' It uses a specific verb ('traverses') and resource (graph neighborhood), clearly differentiating from sibling tools like get_knowledge_graph which likely returns the full graph.

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 says it is 'tuned for "what touches this action?"' and notes the same backend as knowledge-graph traversal, implying it is for exploring connections from a specific node. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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