similarity_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and does so thoroughly. It explicitly states the operation is non-mutating, applies EXACTLY the resolver's policy, and reveals the candidate pool, minimum-text-length gate, scoring behavior, and volatile-meta stripping. This goes far beyond a generic description.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact policy note and a tidy bulleted argument list. There is no filler or redundancy; every line adds actionable information.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the description covers purpose, all parameters, safety, and policy in a way that makes invocation practical. The only real gap is the absence of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to sibling tools, though the advisory nature partly mitigates this.

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 fully does. Every parameter gets meaningful semantics: description text, category confinement, meta volatile-value stripping, threshold range/calibration, and limit as max matches. This is an exemplary compensation for a bare schema.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Preview what the file-time annotator would stamp for an observation,' and clarifies this is advisory, not a write. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar siblings like similarity_report or reqs_search_similar, leaving the distinction mostly to inference from 'preview.'

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?

The intended usage is implied: call this before writing an annotation to see what the resolver would produce, reinforced by 'Advisory only — nothing is written.' But it never states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, and no sibling tools are mentioned for routing.

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