get_neighborhood

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

Without annotations, the description fully explains the algorithm (BFS, undirected, depth/limit caps at 5 and 200 respectively). It does not describe error handling for missing paths, but for a read-only graph traversal, this is adequate.

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 well-structured: a clear first sentence describing functionality, a usage paragraph, and a bulleted parameter list. No redundant or unnecessary text.

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 has an output schema, the description focuses appropriately on behavior and parameters. It covers caps and defaults but omits behavior when `path` does not exist. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 0%, so description carries full burden. It adds meaning by explaining `path` as vault-relative, `depth` as maximum BFS depth with cap, and `limit` as maximum distinct neighbor count with cap, beyond the schema's defaults and types.

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 returns 'the connected subgraph reachable from `path` via links or backlinks, up to `depth` hops (treated as undirected)', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling `find_related` by contrasting explicit links vs conceptual connections.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use this tool (local cluster around a topic) and when to prefer alternatives: 'Prefer this over `find_related` when explicit links are the signal you want; prefer `find_related` when the connection is conceptual rather than linked.'

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