similarity_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently reveals the detection method (content-token overlap) and the intended results, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, how results are paginated, or any behavioral side effects, relying on the 'report' name for implied safety.

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 sentence that is front-loaded and concise, adding no redundant information. It efficiently states the purpose, method, and intended outcomes.

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?

For a report tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the meaning of 'limit' and 'threshold', nor what the returned report contains, leaving important information for correct invocation undisclosed.

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% for the two parameters (limit, threshold), and the description does not mention either parameter. The agent receives no semantic meaning beyond the parameter names and types, so the description completely fails to 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?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ('Find confusable memory pairs') and defines the method ('content-token overlap') and outcome categories (near-duplicates or pairs needing separation), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like dedupe_memories or conflict_advice.

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 implies usage for detecting similar pairs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide any exclusions. It lacks a direct comparison to related reports or dedupe tools, leaving usage somewhat implied.

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