Get Subgraph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool's name, only clarifying that the result includes 'nodes and connecting edges'. No performance or rate-limit caveats are disclosed.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 simplicity, 5 parameters with complete schema descriptions, and strong annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the return concept ('nodes and connecting edges') without requiring an output schema. A brief mention of depth limits might have pushed it to 5, but not essential.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, including depth, edge_types, node_types, etc. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and clearly defines the resource: 'a node and its N-hop neighborhood (nodes and connecting edges)'. This distinguishes it from sibling get_node by explicitly including surrounding nodes and edges.

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 by defining the scope ('N-hop neighborhood'), which clearly indicates when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the exclusions needed for a 5.

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