find_related

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure and it does meaningfully: it states the result is a ranked list, that each entry comes with a connection reason, and that traversal is based on links, tags, and sources. It does not describe failure behavior or edge cases, but the read-style and output behavior are disclosed clearly.

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 entire definition is one focused sentence that states the action, the conditions, and the output format. No filler or redundant information is present, and the core behavior is front-loaded.

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 low schema coverage for slug and no output schema, the description provides the essential behavior but not details like possible failure cases, limits of the ranked list, or how this differs from sibling graph tools. It is adequate for a basic call, but an agent must infer several edge conditions.

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 documents depth with a range and default, while slug is only defined by its type. The description lends some context by referring to 'a given page,' which maps to the slug parameter, but it does not explicitly describe that slug is a page identifier or how depth affects traversal beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific action and target: it finds pages connected to a given page, and it identifies the exact connection mechanisms (wikilinks, shared tags, shared sources). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that search, read, or recommend pages by framing a relation-aware lookup with a ranked result.

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 use case is implied: use this when needing pages connected to a given page via links, tags, or sources. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling alternatives might fit better, leaving the agent to infer the boundary against tools like semantic_search or get_graph_insights.

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