find_related_propositions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Find' implies a non-mutating operation, and the similarity mechanism is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, or provide anything about data scope, performance, or side effects.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes either the purpose or the matching method, making it highly efficient for an agent reading it.

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 tool is simple, and the presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, missing parameter semantics and no sibling differentiation leave the agent with only the minimal callable gist rather than full context.

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%, so the description must compensate. 'Find propositions related' implies that proposition_id is the seed for the search, but it never explicitly explains either parameter, and limit is completely unaddressed.

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 states a specific action ('Find propositions related') and the mechanism ('embeddings or Portuguese full-text similarity'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is reasonably distinguishable from siblings like search_propositions and get_proposition, though it never explicitly names them or contrasts with them.

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 no guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as search_propositions or get_proposition. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use-case context; usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'Find' and the proposition_id parameter.

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