mimry_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are ranked ('graph-aware ranking'), which hints the output is ordered and possibly truncated, but says nothing about permissions, index freshness, determinism, or whether results are exhaustive.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably under-sized relative to the tool's complexity and undocumented parameters.

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 need not be explained, but the tool still leaves the 'root' and 'limit' parameters, the meaning of 'graph-aware', and selection versus sibling tools entirely unspecified. With zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the definition is not complete enough for reliable invocation.

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 none of the three parameters (query, root, limit) are explained in the description. In particular 'root' is opaque and 'limit' semantics (count? relevance cut?) are left entirely undocumented, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb (Return) and resource (files related to a query) plus the ranking mechanism (graph-aware ranking), which differentiates it in spirit from proximity siblings like mimry_semantic or mimry_find. However, it never names or contrasts with those siblings, so an agent must infer when 'related' wins over other retrieval 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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives in a sibling list that contains several other query/retrieval tools (mimry_find, mimry_semantic, mimry_context, mimry_why). Usage is only loosely implied by the word 'related'.

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