similar_common_components

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It only states the basic purpose without disclosing behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permissions, or side effects. The description is insufficient for an agent to understand operational consequences.

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?

The description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loading the verb 'Find'. Every word is necessary, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and sibling tools, the description is too brief. It lacks context about what 'dependency shape' means, what constitutes 'common/scenario/action components', and how this tool differs from similar ones like 'scenario_similarity_map'.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The tool's function is rephrased without parameter-specific context.

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 clearly states the tool finds components sharing the same dependency shape, specifying 'common/scenario/action components'. The verb 'find' and resource 'components' are specific, and the tool name aligns. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'scenario_similarity_map'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without decision-making support.

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