find_similar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns 'related documents ranked by similarity,' which is helpful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify what similarity metric is used, whether results are paginated, if there are rate limits, or what authentication/permissions are required. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose and outcome, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place by adding distinct value.

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 that an output schema exists (which likely defines the return structure), the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with no annotations, 2 parameters (one required), and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete: it lacks parameter semantics, behavioral details like error handling, and differentiation from siblings. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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%, meaning parameter titles ('Source Path', 'Top K') provide minimal semantic information. The description adds no parameter-specific details—it doesn't explain what 'source_path' should contain (e.g., file path, document ID) or how 'top_k' affects results beyond the default. With low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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: 'Find documents similar to a given document. Returns related documents ranked by similarity.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('documents'), and outcome ('ranked by similarity'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_documents' or 'explore_connections' that might also find related content.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Use this when users ask 'what else is related to this document'.' This gives a clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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