mimry_related

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'graph-aware ranking' but does not explain permissions, rate limits, return format, or ordering guarantees. Since an output schema exists, some details are covered, but the description adds little beyond the obvious.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured by including usage hints. Overall, it is concise and readable.

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 complexity of a graph-aware ranking tool, the absence of annotations and the rich sibling ecosystem, the description is inadequate. It does not clarify how this differs from other search or retrieval tools, nor does it compensate for the 0% parameter schema coverage. The output schema helps but doesn't fill the gap.

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%, and the description does not discuss any parameters. The three parameters (query, root, limit) are undocumented beyond their types and defaults, leaving the agent without semantic guidance on their usage, expected value ranges, or interactions.

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 states a specific action ('Return files related to a query') and a mechanism ('graph-aware ranking signals'), which is clearer than a tautology. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from siblings like mimry_find or mimry_semantic, which likely also return related files. Without such differentiation, the purpose remains vague in a crowded namespace.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as mimry_find, mimry_semantic, or mimry_path. The description merely states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer appropriate contexts. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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