Find Thought Relationships

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It never states whether matching is semantic or keyword-based, how relationships are derived, or what the results contain. Only the implicit read-only nature of 'search' is conveyed.

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 or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally concise.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and five parameters including an enum of relationship types, the description should explain the concept of a thought relationship and what a result looks like. It omits the return shape, ranking behavior, and the meaning of the relationship types, leaving the agent with only the schema to work from.

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 100%, so all five parameters (including relationship_types, exclude_thought_id, limit, and the category:name:subcategory session format) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline.

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 gives a specific verb ('search') and resource ('thoughts'), plus a scoping notion ('related to current reasoning within a session'). However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like search_in_session or search_all_sessions, so an agent cannot tell which search to pick from the description alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, despite three other search/session tools in the sibling set. The agent must infer that this is the 'relationship-aware' search variant purely from the tool name.

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