doc_neighbors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not disclose whether it is read-only, any side effects, required plan access beyond the 'PRO+ plan' note, or the shape of the response. The 'PRO+ plan' is a licensing constraint, not behavioral. Crucial behavioral details are absent.

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 concise sentence that states the core purpose in seven words, plus a plan requirement. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning. No redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is too minimal for a tool that operates on a 'doc graph.' It does not explain how the target page is specified (especially with an empty parameter schema), what 'neighboring' means (direct vs. indirect adjacency), or what data is returned. Given no output schema and no parameter guidance, the tool cannot be invoked correctly without additional context.

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 input schema declares zero properties, so the baseline score is 4 per the rubric. The description adds no parameter information, but with no documented parameters that is acceptable. However, the schema's additionalProperties=true means arbitrary properties could be accepted, which the description does not clarify. Still, the schema coverage is effectively complete for defined parameters.

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 states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Get neighboring pages in the doc graph.' It distinguishes from siblings like get_doc_graph and doc_list_pages by focusing on adjacency relationships. The purpose is immediately understandable.

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 implies usage when needing neighbor pages in the doc graph, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like get_doc_graph or doc_list_pages. No exclusions or alternative references are mentioned.

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