Content Next Siblings Tool

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description's main added value is the ordering semantics (higher menuindex, same parent), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about how many results come back, how limit/offset affect traversal, or whether the ordering of returned items is guaranteed — gaps that matter for a paginated list tool.

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; the scoping rule sits immediately after the purpose. It is appropriately sized for what it attempts, though the terseness is partly the cause of the parameter gaps rather than a virtue.

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?

For a three-parameter read tool with no output schema and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description omits pagination behavior, result shape, and edge cases (e.g., a node with no next siblings). The ordering definition is helpful but does not make the definition self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 description carries the full burden, yet it only glosses 'id' as a content node and never explains limit or offset. An agent must guess whether limit is a page size, whether offset is item-based or menuindex-based, and whether offset is optional (the schema allows null).

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 gives a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('next siblings of a content node') and even defines what 'next' means operationally (higher menuindex in same parent). This separates it from a generic siblings or children lookup, though it does not name the obvious counterpart evo.content.prev_siblings explicitly.

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 mention of alternatives such as siblings, siblings_range, or neighbors. The parenthetical ordering rule implies an ordered-navigation context but leaves the agent to infer when this is preferable to a range or neighbors call.

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