find_similar_notes

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

The description explains the mechanism (averaging embeddings and searching semantically), indicating a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, output shape, or any limitations, and there are no annotations to supplement this.

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 concise, using two sentences to convey purpose and method without unnecessary information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 description is adequate for an agent to call the tool correctly, especially given that an output schema exists. It could mention typical use cases or output format, but it is not necessary for basic invocation.

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 schema descriptions for 'path' and 'top_k' are present and clear. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 notes similar to a specific note, using a distinct method (embedding averaging and semantic search). This distinguishes it from sibling search tools like search_advanced or search_duplicates.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose implies it is for finding similar notes to a given note, there is no direct comparison or conditions for choosing this over search_advanced or suggest_links.

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