find_similar

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description adds meaningful caveats: similarity does not prove behavioral identicality, and both the input snippet and returned snippets are untrusted data. These warnings directly affect how an agent should interpret and use the results, significantly increasing transparency.

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 three concise sentences, each earning its place. It leads with the primary action, immediately provides a usage nuance, and ends with a security warning. No fluff or 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, one required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, how to interpret results, and a security caveat. It lacks parameter guidance, but the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory. Overall, sufficient for basic use but not exhaustive.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not mention any parameter (code_snippet, limit, or language). The agent is left to infer semantics from parameter names alone. This is a serious gap, as the description could have explained e.g., the meaning of the limit or language options.

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's purpose: 'Compare a proposed code snippet with indexed Python source.' The verb 'compare' and the specific resources ('proposed code snippet', 'indexed Python source') make it distinct from sibling tools like search_code or find_symbol, which likely perform textual search or symbol lookup.

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 implies a use case (when you have a snippet and want to check for existing implementations) and provides a decision heuristic ('A high similarity score means inspect the existing implementation first'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving some ambiguity relative to sibling tools.

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