similar_tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read-like purpose but says nothing about whether the input task is mutated, how similarity is scored or ordered, whether results are paginated, or what the agent receives beyond what the output schema covers.

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 short sentence with no wasted words and the core purpose front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification given the 0% schema coverage.

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-value explanation is not required. But with no annotations, no parameter descriptions, and an ambiguous relationship to search_tasks, the definition leaves too much for an agent to infer before a correct call.

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% across two parameters. The description does not explain that "handle" is a single task identifier (required, minLength 1) or that "limit" defaults to 5 and is capped at 20 — the latter is only visible by reading the raw schema, and neither is clarified in prose.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Find similar tasks") and names three similarity signals (tags, subscriptions, title content). However, it never explains what "similar" means relative to siblings like search_tasks, so an agent cannot reliably tell when this differs from a keyword search.

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 guidance on when to use this versus search_tasks, which appears to be the closest alternative. The description implies discovery-by-similarity but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions under which the sibling should be preferred.

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