slipbox_find_similar_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the algorithm (shared tags, links, content overlap), the meaning of threshold (minimum similarity 0.0-1.0), and the limit parameter behavior. It does not describe return format or edge cases, but these are relatively minor for a read-only similarity finder.

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 the core purpose, then provides the similarity basis, a use-case sentence, and a compact Args list. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, algorithm, and all parameters. It does not state the return format or sorting order, but given the tool's low complexity and clear parameter explanations, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it 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. It does: note_id is 'ID of the reference note', threshold is 'Minimum similarity score 0.0-1.0 (default: 0.3)', and limit is 'Maximum results (default: 5)'. This adds crucial meaning absent from 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 opens with 'Find notes similar to a given note', which uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('notes') and clearly distinguishes this from search, central, or orphaned note tools. The similarity basis (shared tags, common links, content overlap) further clarifies its exact role.

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 line 'Useful for discovering connections you might have missed' gives clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide tool selection among siblings.

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