get_graph_neighbors

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 the depth range (1-5) and default behavior, which is useful. It doesn't disclose traversal direction semantics beyond 'outward' or cycle handling, but for a read-only graph walk the annotations carry much of the burden.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action and scope, then the key parameter constraint. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a read-only graph traversal with 3 params and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and depth constraint. However, it doesn't clarify what 'direction' accepts (e.g., 'in', 'out', 'both') or what the return shape looks like, which an agent would need for correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains depth (1-5, default 1) and implies the graph-walk semantics, but it doesn't explain the 'direction' parameter values or what 'path' refers to. The description adds some meaning beyond the bare schema but leaves the direction parameter ambiguous.

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 states a specific verb ('Walk') and resource ('the link graph outward from a note'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_backlinks and get_outlinks. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling, but the graph-walking framing makes the purpose clear.

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 context: you use this when you need to traverse the link graph outward from a note, as opposed to get_backlinks (inward) or get_outlinks (direct only). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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