find_manual_siblings

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the plan requirement ('Requires Kiln Business'). It says nothing about what 'sibling revisions' contains, ordering, pagination, or the effect of include_self/include_retired.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but half the text is marketing upsell ('Business adds team review, approval gates, and 3 printers', upgrade URL with tracking parameter) that consumes space without helping an agent invoke the 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 annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description should explain return content and input semantics. Instead it covers only the tier requirement, leaving an agent without enough information to call it confidently.

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 67%, and manual_id has no description in the schema. The description adds no meaning for any of the three parameters, leaving the key input identifier unexplained and doing nothing to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 first sentence gives a verb+resource ('List sibling revisions'), but it says 'of a parametric design' while the tool actually takes a manual_id, creating a resource mismatch. It also fails to distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as list_manual_history or get_manual_revision, so the purpose is only partially pinned down.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no comparison against the many manual/revision siblings (list_manual_history, get_manual_revision, diff_assembly_manuals). The only usage context is the tier gate, which is a prerequisite rather than an invocation guideline.

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