neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral detail about result ordering (nearest first) and included fields (courtyard gap, direction), but it omits edge cases such as behavior when no footprints are in range or how limit applies.

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 a single sentence with no filler, front-loading the core behavior and using backticks for the parameter. It is appropriately terse, though the brevity leaves some gaps addressed in other dimensions.

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?

The output schema and annotations reduce the burden, but the description still does not explain `path` or `limit`, which are optional but could affect results. For a simple read-only query tool, the core use case is decipherable, making this minimally adequate.

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 must compensate. It clarifies `radius` is in mm and implies `ref` is the reference footprint, but it does not explain `path` or `limit`. With 0% schema coverage and 4 parameters, this is only partial compensation.

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 states the tool's output: footprints near a reference footprint within a radius, sorted nearest first, with courtyard gap and direction. Though it lacks an explicit verb, the resource and spatial relationship are clear, and it is distinct from siblings like items_in_region or search.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or preferred conditions, so an agent must infer usage solely from the tool's name and phrasing.

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