Get Graph Neighbors

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: explains traversal direction, depth grouping, hop distance tagging, and path fallback. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. It fully discloses behavior without needing to infer from schema alone.

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 concise: two core sentences plus one for path handling, each earning its place. Front-loaded with the primary action and output format. No fluff.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, but the description covers output format (grouped, tree visualization), edge cases (path extension), and default behaviors. For a graph traversal tool, this is fully contextualized.

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%, but the description enriches each parameter: explains path extension handling, depth range and trade-offs, and direction enum meanings. This adds practical guidance beyond the schema's minimal 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: traverses the wikilink graph outward from a starting note, returns reachable notes within N hops grouped by depth with tree visualization. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_backlinks or get_outlinks which are single-hop direct link retrievers.

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 explicit use cases (explore topic cluster, map neighborhood, find related notes) and mentions path handling. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the context of sibling tools makes the intended usage reasonably clear.

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