get_neo4j_schema

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates the tool is read-only ('list') and provides a failure scenario (APOC missing) with remediation. It lacks details on permission requirements or performance impact, but the core behavioral intent is transparent.

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 only two sentences: the first defines the core action, the second provides critical error guidance. No extraneous information, well front-loaded, and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 presence of an output schema (which covers return values) and sibling tools, the description adequately explains what the tool does and how to handle a common failure. It could mention that it relies on APOC or that it returns a full graph schema, but this is not critical. The description is complete for its intended scope.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description does not need to explain parameters. According to guidelines, baseline is 4. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the output (nodes, attributes, relationships) and error handling, justifying a 4.

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 'List all nodes, their attributes and their relationships to other nodes' which is a specific verb-resource pairing. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_node_metadata (specific node) and visualize_schema (likely visualization format).

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 use when a full schema listing is needed, and includes a helpful error handling tip for APOC missing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like get_node_metadata or visualize_schema, nor does it provide exclusions.

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