graph_neighbors

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It clearly states 'Read-only' and describes the traversal behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits, though these are less critical for a read-only tool.

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 no filler. First sentence states core purpose, second provides usage comparison. 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?

Given 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core behavior and provides usage context. It does not specify the exact output format (e.g., list of nodes and edges), but the high-level description is sufficient for an agent to understand what it returns.

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 minimal parameter semantics beyond what schema already provides, aside from the 'bounded depth' and 'bounds the traversal' context for depth and max_edges.

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?

Description clearly states the action (traverse), resource (entity graph), and output (connected entities and relationships). It distinguishes from the sibling tool graph_context by specifying raw graph structure vs. prose.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool ('explore how an entity connects to others') and when to use the alternative graph_context ('if you want a prose, prompt-ready context pack'). This provides clear decision guidance.

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