read_chunk_neighbors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains return behavior: target chunk (isTarget: true), neighbors ascending by chunkIndex, out-of-range returns [], and defaults (before=2, after=2, max 50 each). This goes well beyond basic descriptions and covers edge cases and ordering.

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 three sentences, directly front-loaded with the main purpose. Each sentence earns its place: purpose, parameter usage, and return behavior. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return structure: target chunk, neighbors, ordering, and edge-case behavior. It also sets expectations for defaults and limits, making it complete for a moderate-complexity read tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant context beyond the schema: it explicitly ties chunkIndex to a query_documents result, emphasizes the exclusivity of filePath vs source, and reiterates defaults and maximums. This enriches the parameter semantics meaningfully.

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 a specific action: 'Read the chunks immediately before and after a query_documents result, in the same document.' This distinguishes it from query_documents (which retrieves results) and other tools by focusing on neighboring chunks. The verb 'read' and resource 'chunks' are explicit and specific.

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 explicit usage guidance by instructing to 'Pass chunkIndex from the result plus exactly one of filePath (ingest_file) or source (ingest_data).' This contextualizes the tool as a follow-up to query_documents. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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