unmanned_neighbourhood

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must clearly communicate side effects. It implies a read operation via 'knowledge graph around a page' and the usage suggestion, but it never explicitly states that it is non-destructive or safe to call. It does, however, disclose the output structure (nodes and edges, types of edges) which is useful behavioral detail. The lack of explicit read-only declaration is a minor gap.

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 the primary purpose front-loaded proved that description is clear and efficient. The first sentence states the main function and constraints; the second clarifies edge semantics and usage. Every word contributes, no fluff.

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 annotations or output schema, this description provides a solid explanation of the result (nodes and edges, hop count, node limit) and a practical recommendation. It lacks explicit details about input format or response shape, but for a graph-query tool, the essential context is conveyed. The mention of 'prose link' helps the agent understand what edges to expect.

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 only parameter 'entity_id' is a string with minLength 1, but the description gives no direct explanation of what this ID refers to. It says 'around a page', implying entity_id is a page identifier, but it is not explicit about the format or source. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should clarify the parameter meaning; it only hints via context.

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 states a specific operation (getting the knowledge graph) for a specific resource (a page) with clear scope (two hops, max 50 nodes). It distinguishes this from simple page reading by describing the neighborhood and edge types, and the usage hint ('context before writing') further clarifies its purpose.

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 gives explicit guidance: use it for context before writing. This indicates a clear use case we can recommend to the agent. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the 'before writing' context strongly implies when to invoke it. Given the sibling list includes write tools (e.g., create_page, assert_fact), this hint is sufficient for selection.

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