slipbox_find_similar_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation through 'Find', but it does not explicitly state that it does not modify notes or that it is non-destructive. It does explain the similarity basis, which adds useful behavioral context, but it omits details about error behavior (e.g., missing note_id) or any side effects. The read-only nature is implied, not confirmed.

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 concise and well-structured. The primary purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a brief explanation of similarity logic and then a clear Args list. No redundant or filler content; 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?

For a simple read-only query tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, similarity logic, and parameters. It does not mention result ordering, behavior on nonexistent note_id, or any limitations, but these are minor given the output schema exists and the tool is straightforward. The description is nearly complete; a small gap is the lack of explicit note that the note must exist or that results are returned in any particular order.

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 explain parameters. It does so thoroughly in the Args section: note_id as 'ID of the reference note', threshold as 'Minimum similarity score 0.0-1.0 (default: 0.3)', and limit as 'Maximum results (default: 5)'. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, including ranges and defaults, fully enabling correct invocation.

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 'Find notes similar to a given note' with a specific verb (Find) and resource (notes similar to a reference). It further distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying similarity criteria (shared tags, common links, content overlap), making it distinct from search, central, or orphaned note tools. No ambiguity.

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 provides a usage hint: 'Useful for discovering connections you might have missed.' This implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like slipbox_search_notes or slipbox_get_linked_notes. There is no explicit statement of when not to use this tool or what conditions select it over siblings. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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