Find Related Items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds minimal extra behavioral context (e.g., no mention of authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling). It does not contradict annotations.

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, which is concise, but it is cut off (ends with 'a...'). This incompleteness detracts from structure. Content is front-loaded with the key action.

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?

No output schema is provided, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of related items with scores? IDs?). It lacks handling of edge cases like missing or invalid IDs. Given the tool's moderate complexity and many siblings, this is insufficient.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the input schema with descriptions and constraints. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage hints beyond the 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 clearly states it finds semantically related items given an ID, specifying item types (note, event, reminder, email). This distinguishes it from basic search siblings like 'search_notes' and 'search_events'. However, the description is cut off ('a...'), which slightly reduces clarity.

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 like 'semantic_search' or 'scan_notes'. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or context in which this tool is optimal.

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