Read Neo4j Cypher

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating 'read', which is already present in the annotations. It does not disclose any error behavior, result shape, or side-effect details, so it contributes no value beyond the structured metadata.

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 redundant filler. It front-loads the core purpose and read-only nature. While it is minimal, it is not bloated and earns its place, though it could slightly benefit from mentioning the sibling distinction.

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 Cypher execution tool with full parameter schema coverage and strong safety annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over get_neo4j_schema, nor does it mention potential limitations of read queries. Given the tool's technical complexity, a bit more context about acceptable query scope would improve completeness.

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 schema already documents both parameters: 'query' as the Cypher query to execute and 'params' as the parameters to pass. The description itself adds no additional semantic detail about parameter usage, formatting, or the relationship between query and params. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 specifies a clear action ('Execute'), a clear resource ('a read Cypher query on the neo4j database'), and explicitly limits the operation to reads, distinguishing it from its write sibling. Even without opening the schema, an agent understands exactly what this tool does and that it is the read counterpart to write_neo4j_cypher.

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 clearly implies this tool is for read-only Cypher queries, which suggests it should not be used for mutations. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions such as 'use write_neo4j_cypher for writes' or 'use get_neo4j_schema for schema introspection', so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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