find_similar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (semantic similarity search) and implies read-only via 'find', but omits useful edge-case details such as whether the source memory itself can appear in the results, how results are ordered, or what happens when the memory_id does not exist.

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?

One clear opening sentence followed by a minimal Args block. No filler, no repetition of schema boilerplate, and the purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are already covered. For a simple 2-parameter tool, the definition adequately covers purpose and parameters, but it misses usage context (when to prefer this over other memory tools) and behavioral edge cases. It is minimally viable but leaves clear gaps.

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% — the schema only provides titles ('Top K', 'Memory Id'). The description compensates well by documenting both parameters: memory_id as the UUID of the source memory and top_k as the maximum number of results with its default of 5. This adds real meaning 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 uses a specific verb (find) with a resource (memories) and a distinguishing qualifier ('semantically similar to an existing memory'). This clearly communicates what the tool does and differentiates it from plain memory retrieval, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or context (e.g., when semantic search is preferred over keyword/ID-based lookup). The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description.

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