find_bidirectional_mentions

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it accepts new notes, optional terms and scope, and returns structured output with two arrays. It also explains the tie-breaking rule when a term matches a new-note stem. This covers the key behavioral aspects.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with purpose followed by parameter signature and output explanation. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and output structure, but lacks detail on case sensitivity, matching rules (exact vs fuzzy), and the scope parameter's effect. An example would enhance completeness.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that newNotes are note titles, terms are free-form search strings, and scope is optional. The schema only defines types and constraints, while the description explains their role in the bidirectional scan.

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 the tool performs a 'two-direction mention sweep for batch new-note operations,' specifying it handles both existing-to-new and new-to-existing mentions. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like find_unlinked_mentions by focusing on batch new-note context and bidirectional scanning.

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 context ('for batch new-note operations') implying when to use this tool, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like find_unlinked_mentions or find_broken_links.

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