read_chunk_neighbors

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

No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden. Discloses return format (target with isTarget: true plus neighbors sorted ascending), edge-case behavior (window clamped to existing chunks, chunkIndex beyond returns empty result), and parameter defaults/ranges (before/after defaults 2, max 50). No contradictions.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage, followed by technical details. It is moderately long but every sentence adds value. Minor redundancy: 'Provide exactly one of filePath or source' is stated twice (once in schema description and once in tool description), which is acceptable. Could be slightly more concise, but structure is clear.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary context: input sources, parameter relationships, default behavior, edge cases (empty result), and return structure. No gaps identified.

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 100%, but description adds meaning: explains that filePath and source are mutually exclusive, that chunkIndex comes from query_documents result, and that before/after have defaults and maximums. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Expand a query_documents result by reading the chunks immediately before and after it in the same document.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like query_documents (which returns hits) and ingest_file/ingest_data (which add documents). The tool is uniquely for getting neighboring context.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when the hit needs more surrounding context – for example, a definition without its example, or a conclusion without its reasoning.' It also specifies how to pass parameters (chunkIndex from query_documents result, filePath from ingest_file or source from ingest_data) and gives constraints (defaults before=2, after=2, max 50 each, provide exactly one of filePath or source).

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