Neotoma

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'n-hop traversal' and 'supports' relationships, but fails to detail critical aspects: whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance impacts for large traversals, error handling, or response format. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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 extremely concise—two sentences that directly state the tool's function and key feature (n-hop traversal). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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's complexity (5 parameters, relationship traversal, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, performance considerations, and how it differs from similar tools like retrieve_graph_neighborhood. For a tool with moderate complexity and no structured support, more context is needed to be complete.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying traversal capabilities without elaborating on parameter interactions or semantics. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 entities connected via relationships with n-hop traversal. It specifies the verb ('retrieve'), resource ('entities'), and mechanism ('connected via relationships'), distinguishing it from siblings like retrieve_entities (general retrieval) or retrieve_graph_neighborhood (which might be similar but not explicitly differentiated). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with retrieve_graph_neighborhood, which appears to be a close sibling, preventing a perfect score.

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 mentions n-hop traversal but doesn't specify scenarios where this is preferable over other tools like retrieve_graph_neighborhood or list_relationships, nor does it outline prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied through functionality but not explicitly stated.

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