get_neighborhood

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds significant behavioral context: RBAC filtering (denied neighbors shown as aggregate omitted counts), default and max hops, node-budget cap with truncated flag. No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with usage scenario and purpose, then logically flows to typical use case and parameter details. While somewhat long, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly tighter.

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 no output schema, the description covers key aspects: when to use, what it returns (with RBAC filtering note), parameter defaults and limits, and edge cases (max_nodes truncation). Missing explicit output format, but sufficient for a read-only topology tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by integrating parameter behavior into usage flow (e.g., profile selection advice, hops limits), but mostly restates schema info.

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 returns a BFS-expanded topology neighborhood around a root resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'get_topology' by noting it is cheaper and clearer once a suspect is identified.

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 explicitly specifies when to use the tool: investigating cross-resource failures. It provides a typical workflow and contrasts with get_topology, and advises when to use 'all' profile vs default.

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