find_related_api_members

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful result semantics — interface returns its own members, member returns co-exposed members plus name-substring matches — which is real value. It doesn't describe read-only nature, result limits, or the substring-matching behavior's implications, though an output schema exists.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by the case-specific behavior. No filler, though the second sentence is slightly dense in phrasing.

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 not be explained, and the description does convey what 'related' means. What is missing is sibling differentiation and any parameter guidance — gaps the description should cover given the absence of annotations.

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 reported as 0% at the definition level. The description alludes only to the 'name' concept ('known interface or member name', 'name-substring matches') and says nothing about the year override, index file path, or max_results parameters, so it adds little beyond the enum-free schema.

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 gives a specific verb (find) and resource (API members related to an interface/member name), and even clarifies the semantics for the two input cases. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like lookup_api_method or lookup_api_interface, so the agent can't tell from the description alone which lookup to pick.

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 implicitly explains the two scenarios (given an interface vs. given a member) and what each returns, which implies when the tool is useful. But it offers no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no guidance on choosing it over the sibling lookup tools.

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