Find Related Documents

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful context: the 'Pro only' restriction and the specific fields returned (vault, category, tags, link label), which go beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four short sentences, each providing essential information: purpose, restriction, return summary, and an alternative tool. No waste.

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 tool has a simple single-parameter API, output schema, and safe annotations. The description covers the purpose, return fields, and Pro-only restriction, making it fully adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only vaguely refers to 'a given document' and does not clarify the doc_id parameter format or semantics beyond what the schema title 'Doc Id' implies. For a single param this is adequate but still minimal additional value.

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 uses the specific verb 'find' and clearly identifies the resource: documents linked to a given document. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like vault_link_doc (create links) and vault_get_doc (retrieve a single document).

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?

It names the alternative vault_link_doc for creating links, giving clear direction on when to use this tool vs that one. However, it doesn't explicitly state exclusions or broader use cases, so it falls short of a 5.

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