Get Neo4j Schema

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the 'List' verb is consistent with them. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond annotations: the APOC plugin dependency, which can cause runtime failure. However, it does not disclose what happens when APOC is missing or how the schema is 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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action and scope, the second states the prerequisite. The main purpose is front-loaded and 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 zero-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers the essentials: what is returned (nodes, attributes, relationships) and a critical prerequisite. Minor gaps include the absence of output format expectations and performance caveats for large schemas, but these are not blocking 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the description carries no burden for documenting parameter meaning. The baseline of 4 applies, and the absence of parameter-specific description is not a deficiency.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a clearly defined resource: nodes, attributes, and relationships in the Neo4j database. This conveys schema introspection as a distinct operation, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling Cypher execution tools by name.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus read_neo4j_cypher or write_neo4j_cypher. The APOC prerequisite is a dependency condition, not a selection directive, so the agent must infer the appropriate context on its own.

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