graph.get_neighbors

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds behavioral context: BFS traversal, specific neighbor types, and the graph build requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the main action and subsequently adds traversal details and a prerequisite. Slight improvement could be ordering, but overall efficient.

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 0% schema coverage and existence of an output schema, the description covers the core behavior but misses parameter semantics. It does not describe the depth parameter's role or default behavior, leaving a gap in completeness for a tool with two parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters. It mentions 'a note' implying path but does not describe the path parameter's format or the depth parameter's meaning, range, or default. This severely limits an agent's ability to use parameters correctly.

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 'Get neighbor nodes' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like graph.get_backlinks by noting the inclusion of outLinks, backLinks, and shared-tag neighbors. It also specifies BFS traversal, adding unique context.

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 mentions a prerequisite ('Graph must be built first') but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like graph.get_backlinks. The context of use is implied rather than directly stated.

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