find_similar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does so reasonably: 'nothing is cloned' rules out side effects, and 'each term is one search; they run at once' explains the parallel execution model. It omits auth requirements and rate-limit behaviour, which matters on GitHub/GitLab-backed search.

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?

It is dense but every clause earns its place, led by the purpose and usage trigger before the parameter guidance. The inline examples are the shortest way to convey the required term style.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers all three parameters plus the read-only, parallel-search behaviour. Only environmental details like credentials or query limits for the underlying GitHub/GitLab search are absent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description has to teach every parameter, and it does: 'task' is the feature in a sentence, 'terms' are 2-4 literal code strings with concrete examples and the warning not to use the request's own words, and 'org' is conditional on multi-org setups. This is meaningfully richer than any schema field here.

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?

It names a specific verb and resource ('find where the org already implemented it') and immediately scopes it ('searches the org's repos on GitHub or GitLab; nothing is cloned'). That scope separates it from siblings like search_org or find_across at a glance.

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 opening 'Before building a feature' gives a clear trigger for when to call this tool. It doesn't name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, which keeps this out of 5 territory.

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