Content Siblings Tool

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description only repeats 'with pagination' without disclosing sibling ordering, whether only immediate siblings are returned, whether the node itself is included, or what the response contains.

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 short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. Its brevity is efficient, though some of that saved space would have been better spent on parameter and sibling disambiguation.

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 tool with three fully undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many competing sibling tools, the definition leaves too much unspecified. An agent cannot confidently choose between this and next_siblings/prev_siblings/siblings_range, nor predict what the pagination fields mean.

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% for three parameters. The description hints that 'id' identifies the content node and that limit/offset drive pagination, but it never states what id refers to precisely (node id vs path), offset semantics, or any limit ceiling, so it does not compensate for the empty schema.

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 and resource: 'Read sibling documents of a content node,' plus a scope note about pagination. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not differentiate itself from near-identical siblings such as evo.content.next_siblings, evo.content.prev_siblings, or evo.content.siblings_range, so an agent must guess which one applies.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative is named. The only signal is the implicit notion that an agent wanting sibling documents should use this tool, leaving the very dense sibling namespace unresolved.

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