find_similar_notes

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 only states the core action and does not explain how similarity is computed, return format, sorting, error handling, or that it is a read-only operation. The description lacks meaningful behavioral context.

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, directly states the action, and contains no fluff. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, making it efficiently sized.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is too brief. It does not clarify the return value, ranking behavior, default thresholds, or error cases. While parameters are well-documented, the overall context for the agent is incomplete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for filepath, limit, threshold, and vaultId. The description text adds no parameter-level meaning, so it does not go beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Find') + resource ('notes') + qualifier ('semantically similar to a given note'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like semantic_search by indicating the input is an existing note (filepath) rather than a free-text query.

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?

Usage context is implied: use when you have a note and want to find semantically related notes. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, nor exclusions or comparison to sibling tools like semantic_search or search.

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