Content Neighbors Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, and the description usefully adds that results are paginated and limited to immediate neighbors. It still does not say whether one node per direction is returned, what ordering applies, or what happens at tree boundaries (root/leaf), which is the key behavioral question for a neighbor read.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing differentiation noted elsewhere.

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, no annotation detail beyond readOnlyHint, and 0% schema description coverage across three parameters, the description carries most of the burden and does not meet it. An agent would not know the return shape, neighbor count, or pagination contract.

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 0%, so the schema alone gives no meaning beyond types. The description partially compensates by tying 'content item' to id and 'pagination' to limit/offset, but adds no detail on limit defaults, offset semantics, or why limit is required for a neighbor lookup.

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 concrete verb ('Read') and a resource ('immediate previous/next neighbor nodes for a content item'), which is better than tautology. However, 'neighbors' is left undefined and is not distinguished from close siblings such as evo.content.next_siblings, evo.content.prev_siblings, evo.content.siblings, and evo.content.siblings_range, so an agent cannot confidently pick this tool over those.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The word 'immediate' hints that only adjacent nodes are returned, but the agent is left to infer when this is preferable to the sibling/range variants.

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