similarity_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well. It reveals the non-mutating nature ('dry run', 'no merge is performed or implied'), the default population (LIVE rows), the wall-clock scaling behavior (quadratic per category block), and the effect of family_limit/member_limit on visibility of totals.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: core semantics, mutation disclaimer, population defaults, performance warning, and per-argument meaning. The bolded key terms and bullet-style Args list make it easy to parse despite the length.

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 tool has 5 optional parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, parameters, defaults, and performance constraints. An output schema exists, so not detailing the exact return structure is acceptable; the description still provides enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 fully compensate, and it does. The Args section explains threshold's range and default, status's sentinel value, family_limit and member_limit semantics, and that totals remain visible even when limits are applied.

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 'Offline grouping scrub: similarity families as auditable evidence,' clearly defining the tool's purpose and deliverable. It explains that families are connected components with min_pair_score and edge lists, and explicitly distinguishes this from a merge/backfill operation, making it distinct from siblings like codemerge_merge or mark_integrated.

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 description gives explicit usage context: it is 'the dry run for any future backfill/merge' and states that 'no merge is performed or implied.' It also names an alternative ('prefer the CLI for very large trackers') and explains how to widen or narrow the population via the status parameter, giving clear when/when-not guidance.

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