find_related_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the mechanism (cosine similarity on stored embeddings) and an important edge case (returns a message when no embeddings exist), which is genuinely useful. But it omits prerequisites such as whether notes must be indexed/synced first, and says nothing about permission or side-effect profile.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in one sentence, then uses compact bulleted examples and an Args/Returns block. Slightly listy, but each section carries information with little waste.

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?

Output schema exists, so the return-value description is a bonus rather than a necessity. For a 3-param read tool with moderate complexity, the description covers mechanism, parameters, defaults, and the no-embeddings fallback; only indexing prerequisites are absent.

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 it largely does: it explains path format with a concrete example, limit as max results with default 5, and threshold as cosine similarity 0–1 with default 0.7. It stops short of explaining interaction between limit and threshold (e.g., filtering order), so not a full 5.

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 semantically related notes for a given note') and pins down the input as a vault-relative path. This distinguishes it from siblings like search_notes (keyword search) and query_graph (graph traversal) by naming the similarity mechanic up front.

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?

Offers two concrete 'useful for' scenarios (finance stock reports, knowledge overlap discovery), which imply usage. However, it never states when to prefer this over search_notes or query_graph, nor any exclusions, so a routing decision still requires inference.

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