read_chunk_neighbors

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (reading neighboring chunks), the exclusive-choice constraint, and defaults for before/after. However, it does not mention edge cases such as invalid indices, what happens if both filePath and source are provided, or error conditions, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and packs essential parameter guidance into the second sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered externally. The description covers the main usage scenario, parameter semantics, and constraints. It is missing a note about how to obtain chunkIndex from a search result and potential error handling, but overall it is sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 explains filePath as an absolute path inside a document root, source as the id of a data/url item, and clarifies before/after counts and defaults. chunkIndex is only implied as the anchor but is understandable from context; still, it could have been explicitly defined.

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 uses the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as 'chunks immediately before and after a search result.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file (which reads a single file) and query_documents (which searches), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit parameter usage guidance: 'Provide exactly one of filePath... or source' and explains how before/after control the number of chunks. It implies use after a search result but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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