lesson_neighbors

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds that it returns a ranked, read-only list of semantic neighbors. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the read-only nature and the ranked output format.

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 with no fluff, front-loading the purpose, and then providing usage and output context. Every sentence adds value.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, when to use it, and what to do with results. It mentions reading a slug from the output, implying the output schema includes slugs. The only gap is the undocumented 'k' parameter, which is minor for an optional parameter.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by naming title, summary, and body as inputs. However, it does not explain the 'k' parameter (likely the number of neighbors), though its default of 3 gives a hint. It adds meaning for the core params but misses one.

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 the tool suggests nearby existing lessons before creating a new one, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like lesson_append and lesson_patch by positioning it as a pre-authoring step.

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?

It explicitly says to call before lesson_append and suggests actions (patch/consolidate or add a slug link) based on results. It lacks an explicit 'when not to use' statement but provides clear context for the workflow.

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