find_similar_claims

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'enriched with source context' and implies read-only behavior with 'find', but it does not disclose potential limitations, error handling, output structure, or any side effects, leaving important behavior unaddressed.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action and resource. The phrase 'enriched with source context' is somewhat vague, but the overall length is appropriate for a simple tool.

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 single parameter, lack of output schema, and no annotations, the description gives a basic understanding of purpose and scope. It does not explain the output format, similarity threshold, or result limits, leaving some gaps for a complete contextual picture.

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 already fully documents the single parameter inode_id as a UUID, with 100% coverage. The description adds the term 'I-nodes' but does not provide additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states.

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 tool finds semantically similar claims (I-nodes) across the platform, with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like semantic_search, so it does not fully distinguish itself.

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 when a user wants semantically similar claims for a given I-node, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria.

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