retrieve_graph_neighborhood

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the types of data returned (entities, relationships, sources, events) and mentions 'complete', but does not explain depth limits, performance implications, pagination, or auth requirements. The behavior is partially clear but insufficiently detailed for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding. There is no superfluous content, making it highly efficient.

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 lack of an output schema, the description must convey the return structure. It does so by listing the included types. This is mostly sufficient for a retrieval tool, but could be improved by noting potential performance costs or depth limits (e.g., 'including all connected nodes up to 1 hop'), which would make it fully contextual. As is, it is complete enough for typical use.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters, so the description adds minimal value. It only restates the types of includes as a list, which is already reflected in the schema. The parameter meaning is adequately conveyed by the schema, giving a baseline score of 3.

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 the tool retrieves the 'complete graph neighborhood' around a node, listing the types of data included (entities, relationships, sources, events). This distinguishes it from siblings like retrieve_entities (returns a specific set of entities) or list_relationships (only relationships). The verb 'retrieve' and resource 'graph neighborhood' are specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when needing a full view of a node's connections, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., retrieve_related_entities, list_relationships) or when not to use it (e.g., if only a subset is needed). No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided, relying solely on the phrase 'complete graph neighborhood' to hint at scope.

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