get_device_neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little behavioral detail beyond 'based on topology,' and does not mention how depth affects results or what kind of neighbors are returned.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words and the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately brief for a simple read operation, though the phrasing 'devices/resources' is slightly ambiguous.

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 simple read-only tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not clarify what 'neighbors' means, how depth interacts with topology, or what the return payload contains, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema already documents device_id and depth, but the descriptions are minimal and the tool description does not enrich their semantics.

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 ('Get') and resource ('neighboring devices/resources') and ties it to topology, making the tool's core purpose clear. However, it does not differentiate this from closely related siblings like get_device_connections or get_topology_map, so the purpose is clear but not uniquely framed.

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 the tool is for retrieving topology-based neighbors, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. With many topology-related sibling tools present, an agent must infer the right context from the name and brief description alone.

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