list_siblings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions behavioral aspects like including 'both pending and completed tasks' and being 'left of current focus', but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or response format. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by additional context. It's efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage guidance into a distinct part.

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 annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description provides basic purpose and context but lacks details on return values, error handling, or deeper behavioral traits. It's minimally adequate for a read-only tool but doesn't fully compensate for the missing structured data.

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 has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'include_body' fully documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, such as examples or implications of setting 'include_body' to true. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 purpose: 'See all sibling tasks to the left of current focus' with the verb 'see' and resource 'sibling tasks'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_current_task' (single task) and 'get_completed_tasks' (all completed tasks) by focusing on leftward siblings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_stack_overview' which might show a broader view.

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 context: 'Helpful for understanding your position in the current task sequence' suggests using it when orientation is needed. It doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives like 'get_stack_overview' for different perspectives, leaving some ambiguity.

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