find_related_work

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail: how matching works (by titles and original user prompts) and the qualitative claim of being 'more precise' than search_history. No contradictions or missing disclosure of 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?

Two short sentences carry all necessary information: the first defines the tool's function, the second positions it against a sibling. There is zero redundancy, and key terms are front-loaded.

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 has only 3 parameters (1 required), a rich output schema, and clear annotations, so the description need not explain return values. It covers the primary use case and positions the tool relative to one key alternative. However, it omits details about scope limitations or behavior across directories/prompts, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all parameters, including the query example, limit default/max, and directory scope. The description adds no additional meaning beyond pointing to 'task description' which is already in the schema. Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') with a clear resource ('sessions') and method ('by matching session titles and original user prompts'). It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from a sibling ('More precise than search_history'), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 a clear context for use ('finding sessions on the same topic') and directly compares with 'search_history', noting that this tool is more precise. However, it does not explicitly address when to use alternative sibling tools like find_sessions_by_file or list_sessions, so it stops short of full exclusions.

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