get_neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the tool's safety profile is clear. The description adds that it returns both incoming and outgoing relationships, which is useful but does not disclose other behavioral traits like limits on relationship count or return format.

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 sentence front-loaded with the core action. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool, though could include a brief note on the return structure (e.g., 'returns a list of neighbor URIs and relationship types').

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 tool has no output schema and only one parameter. The description does not explain the expected return format (e.g., list of URIs, objects with type/uri). Given the absence of an output schema, the description should hint at the response structure to ensure correct usage.

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 100% with one parameter ('uri') described as 'Canonical or path based okf URI of the center concept.' The description's mention of 'one OKF concept' aligns with the schema but adds no additional meaning or constraints 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 clearly states the tool returns 'incoming and outgoing graph relationships' for 'one OKF concept', which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_subgraph' (which returns a larger subgraph) and 'find_paths' (which finds paths between concepts).

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 for retrieving neighbors of a single concept, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_subgraph' or 'find_paths'. No 'when not to use' or 'see also' references are given.

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