neighbors

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantial context beyond them: no bodies, no pagination, no result cap, unknown/unlinked slugs return [], dangling links may appear, and the whole thing is a local index read with no model call or writes. That is exactly the extra behavioral disclosure the annotations cannot carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose and one-hop scope come first, then return shape, then routing, then edge cases. Each sentence carries distinct information, though the return-shape sentence is tightly packed and slightly heavy for a one-parameter tool.

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, the description fully specifies the return contract: a JSON array of {slug, direction, phrase}, sort order by neighbor slug, the meaning of in/out, and that phrase may be empty. Edge cases (unknown slug, dangling links) and the absence of pagination or caps are also covered.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in-schema (exact slug, example, both-direction query, no multi-hop). The description reinforces the slug semantics but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks, so the baseline 3 applies; the direction/phrase explanation is return-value information, not parameter information.

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 and resource ('Explore one wiki page's incoming and outgoing [[wikilinks]]') plus an explicit scope bound ('one hop only'). It is immediately distinguishable from search, list_pages, and read_page, which are named as alternatives.

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?

Explicit sequencing ('Use after discovering a page with search or list_pages') and explicit routing rules for each sibling: search for content matches, list_pages for the full catalog, read_page for one neighbor's body. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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