similar_documents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it explains the core behavior: embedding-based similarity rather than explicit links, and what kinds of results to expect (near-duplicates, older notes). It does not mention edge cases like missing paths or limit semantics, but the main behavioral trait is clearly disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core purpose, then add usage context and a sibling comparison. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, this is largely complete: you know what it does, why you would use it, and how it differs from a sibling. The only gap is explicit parameter guidance, which the input schema's defaults partially cover.

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. It refers to a 'given note' but never explicitly describes the required 'path' parameter or how 'limit' affects results; only the schema's minimal titles and default provide any information.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find notes covering similar ground to a given note'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating it uses 'embedding similarity rather than by explicit links', and explicitly contrasts it with entities_in_document.

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?

It gives concrete scenarios: 'surface related material the wikilinks miss — near-duplicates, or an older note on the same topic'. It names an alternative (entities_in_document) and explains the difference, though it does not discuss when not to use the tool relative to semantic_search.

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