find_related_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully clarifies that relationships are 'semantically' determined (implying embedding/ML-based similarity), but provides no information about safety, idempotency, error conditions (e.g., invalid scroll_id), or performance characteristics.

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 single-sentence description is efficiently structured with the core action front-loaded. Every word earns its place, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting parameter documentation that would be necessary for full completeness.

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 tool has an output schema, the description appropriately omits return value details. However, with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description should have documented both parameters and potential error states to be fully complete for an agent.

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%, requiring the description to fully compensate. While 'to a given scroll' implies the purpose of scroll_id as the source entity, the limit parameter is completely undocumented, leaving critical interface details (valid ranges, behavior of default) unexplained.

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 provides a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('scrolls'), and importantly distinguishes this tool from citation-based siblings like get_citations_tool via the parenthetical '(even if not explicitly cited)'. This clarifies the semantic similarity approach versus explicit linking.

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 parenthetical '(even if not explicitly cited)' implies a distinction from citation-graph tools, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings like search_scrolls_tool or get_citations_tool. The guidance is present but implied rather than explicit.

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