find_similar_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the tool returns similar notes, but omits key traits such as whether it is read-only, performance implications, rate limits, or what 'semantically similar' means operationally.

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 extremely concise, using a standard docstring format. The purpose is front-loaded in the first line. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool's simplicity (2 parameters, one required) and the presence of an output schema (though not displayed), the description adequately covers the inputs and basic return type. It is nearly complete; missing details are minor (e.g., behavior when note_id is invalid).

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that note_id is a source note UUID and limit controls max results with a default of 5 and max of 100. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions (0% coverage). A higher score would require clarification of semantics like 'semantically similar' or error conditions.

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's function: 'Find notes semantically similar to the given note.' It uses a specific verb (find) and resource (notes semantically similar), and the semantic similarity aspect distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_notes or query_facts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to other search or retrieval tools among the siblings.

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