The expectation is legitimate: you go to a specialist, you pay, you have a problem, you want an answer. In medicine that is exactly how it works. In therapy the logic differs, and the reason deserves explaining rather than merely asserting.
Advice solves a situation; understanding solves the class of situations. If the therapist tells you to leave a relationship, you have one decision made. If you understand what keeps you in it, you have something that applies to the next one too.
The therapist does not have the data. They see one hour a week, from a single perspective — yours. They do not know your partner, your boss, your family or your real constraints. Advice from that position would carry a confidence the available information does not justify.
Advice moves the responsibility. If it goes badly it is the therapist's fault; if it goes well the credit is not yours. Both weaken exactly what should be growing.
What you will get, very concretely: information about how a mechanism works, exercises and homework between sessions, questions that surface what you already knew, and sometimes a direct “here it seems to me that…”. Cognitive behavioural therapies are the most directive — they come with structure, homework and clear instructions. Psychodynamic and humanistic ones, less so.
The exception: in situations of risk — physical safety, suicide risk, abuse — the therapist will be direct and will say plainly what needs doing. Neutrality does not apply there.