Find related logics

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that by disclosing the ranking logic ("weighted by rarity") and the two distinct result classes (explicit links vs. inferred tag/service similarity). It does not describe ordering or result shape for either class, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the mechanism first, then the usage trigger, then the exclusion. Every clause earns its place; no restatement of the name or title.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so: it characterizes what comes back (explicitly linked logics plus rarity-weighted tag/service neighbours). It stops short of noting whether weights/scores appear in the output or how results are ordered, a minor gap for a ranking-based 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, documenting both `id` and `limit` including defaults and bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only names the input conceptually ("Given a logic id") and adds no format, scope, or id-resolution detail beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb (return/find) and resource (logics related to a given id), and immediately scopes it: explicit links plus tag/service overlap. It also explicitly contrasts itself with search_logics, so an agent can distinguish it from all five siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit sequencing ("Use it after get_logic") with a concrete worked scenario (a DataStore logic pointing at retry/backoff and autosave), and an explicit exclusion ("Not a search tool — for a new question use search_logics"), naming the alternative tool by name.

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