nexo_local_asset_neighbors

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action without indicating read-only status, rate limits, cost, permissions needed, or whether it's destructive. Minimal disclosure for a tool that likely performs a graph query.

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 sentence of 8 words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word is essential, and there is no redundancy or wasted text.

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 output schema and only two parameters, the description does not cover return format, pagination, graph structure representation (nodes/edges), or any caveats. It is too terse for an agent to fully understand what the tool produces.

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 0%, so the description does not elaborate on parameters. The schema names (asset_id, limit) are somewhat self-explanatory, but no context is given about what the limit restricts (e.g., number of relations) or any valid values. The default of 30 is not explained.

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 identifies the action ('return graph relations') and the resource ('indexed local asset'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like nexo_local_asset_get which retrieves asset details, and nexo_context_* tools which provide broader context. However, the term 'graph relations' could be more specific about the type of connections.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nexo_context_packet or other graph-related tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools mentioned.

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