find_related

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the retrieval mechanism (semantic similarity plus 1-hop wiki-link expansion), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it says nothing about result ordering, whether expansion can be large/expensive, or that this is a pure read operation beyond the implied 'Find'.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the mechanism clause sits immediately after the purpose and earns its place by defining the ambiguous term 'related'.

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 two-parameter read tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the definition supplies the one thing an agent must know: what 'related' means. The only gap, the meaning of k, is minor against that.

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 and does not: 'k' (default 10) is never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess whether it caps semantic neighbours, expanded links, or total results. 'file_path' is self-evident, but the one non-obvious parameter is entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Find notes related to the given note') and adds scope detail ('semantic neighbours + 1-hop wiki-link expansion') that clarifies what 'related' means. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings semantic_search and backlinks by combining both signals, but never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: call it when you want related notes for a known file. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus semantic_search (semantic only) or backlinks (link only), which are the obvious alternatives, and no stated prerequisites.

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