Get Related

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds algorithmic details (Jaccard similarity, shared tags and neighbors) and the output scope (notes not directly linked), providing value beyond annotations. No contradiction.

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 two sentences long, each serving a clear purpose: one for what it does, one for when to use it. No redundant or extraneous information.

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?

The description adequately covers the tool's purpose, algorithm, and usage context. Missing output format details (e.g., returned fields) but acceptable given no output schema and good annotation coverage.

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?

Both parameters (path, limit) are fully described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 'recommend similar notes' and specifies the resource (notes), along with the algorithm (Jaccard similarity on tags and 1-hop neighbors). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_backlinks by noting it finds notes NOT directly linked.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use this to surface notes that probably should be linked but aren't yet.' While it doesn't list alternatives or exclusion cases, the purpose is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use it.

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