Neotoma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what components are included in the response but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what 'complete' means in practice. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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 that front-loads the core purpose. It wastes no words on unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the 'what' from the 'components included' for even better clarity.

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 6 parameters with full schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic context about what the tool does. However, for a graph query tool that likely returns complex data structures, the absence of output schema means the description should ideally provide more guidance about response format, but it doesn't. It's minimally viable but has clear gaps.

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%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'entity or source' which aligns with the node_type enum, and lists components that correspond to include_* parameters, but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or semantics not already in the schema descriptions.

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's purpose: retrieving a complete graph neighborhood around a node, specifying what components are included (related entities, relationships, sources, events). It uses specific verbs ('retrieve') and identifies the resource ('graph neighborhood'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'retrieve_related_entities' or 'retrieve_entity_snapshot'.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'retrieve_related_entities' or 'retrieve_entity_snapshot', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or optimal use cases. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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