find_similar_notes

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 the method ('cosine similarity') but doesn't describe what 'similar content' entails (e.g., text-based, semantic), how results are ordered, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any performance considerations like rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that performs computational analysis.

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 purpose ('Find notes with similar content') and includes the method ('using cosine similarity') without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 similarity-finding tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., read-only nature, performance), output format (e.g., what data is returned), and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured fields. This makes it inadequate for guiding an agent effectively in tool selection and 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter details (e.g., 'path' as reference note, 'threshold' range 0-1, 'maxResults' default). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'threshold' affects similarity matching or format requirements for 'path'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the verb ('Find') and resource ('notes'), specifying the method ('using cosine similarity') and goal ('with similar content'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'search_vault' or 'list_notes' by focusing on content similarity rather than keyword matching or listing, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'analyze_note_relationships' or 'suggest_connections' which might have overlapping purposes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a reference note), exclusions (e.g., not for exact matches), or compare to siblings like 'analyze_note_relationships' or 'suggest_connections' that might handle similar tasks differently. The description implies usage for finding content-similar notes but lacks explicit context.

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