icf_get_siblings

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool takes an ICF code and returns a list of sibling codes with titles. However, it does not mention error handling (e.g., invalid code), rate limits, or other behavioral details, but for a simple query tool this is minimally adequate.

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 extremely concise: a one-line purpose statement, a one-line usage hint, and an example with Args/Returns structure. Every sentence adds value and no information is wasted.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what it returns. The presence of an output schema (indicated by context) supplements the return description. It does not discuss edge cases but is complete for a straightforward lookup tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It adds an example (e.g., 'd450', 'b280') and explains the parameter as 'ICF code to find siblings for,' which provides meaning beyond the schema's type and title alone. It could further specify format or validity constraints.

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 'Get sibling codes — other codes at the same level sharing the same parent,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like icf_get_children and icf_get_parent by focusing on codes at the same level, and includes an example with d450 and its siblings.

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 explicitly states 'Useful for finding related or alternative codes,' which gives clear usage context. It provides an example but does not explicitly state when not to use or directly compare to all sibling tools, though the tool name and context of sibling tools imply appropriate usage.

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