ddflow_similar

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares 'Read-only', explains that candidates span kinds and closed states, enumerates returned fields (id, kind, title, state, score, words, flags), and warns that score is 'a prompt to LOOK, not a verdict'. It even documents exit-code behavior on no matches.

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 question and the read-only/return facts efficiently, but the dense ALL-CAPS emphasis and stacked parentheticals make it longer than strictly necessary. Still, nearly every sentence conveys distinct selection or interpretation guidance.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the returned fields and their meaning, plus the exit-2 case, so an agent knows exactly what to expect. For a simple 3-parameter read tool this is fully sufficient.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value: it clarifies that 'text' is the title/summary about to be filed, that 'kind' accepts a comma-separated subset defaulting to all, and ties 'as_agent' to ddflow_identify rather than restating the schema verbatim.

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?

Opens with a specific, quotable purpose ('IS THIS ALREADY FILED? -- the existing records most like a text, BEFORE you file it'), naming both the verb (find similar) and the resource (existing records). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like ddflow_lesson_search or ddflow_recall by its pre-filing dedupe framing.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('BEFORE you file it as a bug, task, lesson or other record') and that candidates cross kinds and include closed ones, with a rationale for each. It also notes which configuration ([dedupe] show_floor, max_candidates, kinds) governs selection and what an empty result means (exit 2).

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