get_vocab_neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens at deck boundaries (null, error, wrap-around), whether ordering follows deck position or SRS order, or what shape the result takes. For an openWorld lookup with positional semantics, that omission matters.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately brief, though the brevity is partly the source of the specification gaps rather than efficiency alone.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations describing return values, the description should explain what comes back (e.g., two items, or null at ends) and the ordering basis. Neither is covered, and the undocumented parameters compound the gap.

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% with two required parameters, and the description never explains which argument is the anchor (vocab_id) versus the scope (deck_id), nor the expected format of the string vocab_id. The phrase 'in a deck' weakly hints at deck_id, but the agent must guess the rest.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and a specific resource (previous/next vocabulary items in a deck), which is clearly distinct from the sibling get_vocab that returns a single item. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the neighborhood semantics make the distinction obvious.

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 no guidance on when to use this versus get_vocab, get_queue, or get_due, nor any precondition beyond the implicit need for an existing vocab_id in a deck. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and one-line purpose.

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