find_similar_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'semantically similar' but does not explain the mechanism, whether the operation is read-only, how results are ordered, or what the returned list contains beyond being similar notes. It also lacks any side-effect or error information. The description is too sparse for an agent to predict outcomes accurately.

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 compact docstring with a one-line purpose, an Args section, and a Returns line. Every sentence is informative and there is no filler. The key purpose is front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown here) and a clear parameter list, the description is minimally sufficient for calling the tool, but it omits important context like whether the note must exist, what happens if no similar notes are found, and how similarity is computed. It also does not distinguish from the many related tools, leaving the agent to guess use cases. Additional detail about the return format or scoring would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries all parameter semantics. It clarifies that note_id is a UUID string (schema only says string) and specifies limit's default (already in schema) and max value (not in schema). This adds meaningful information beyond the schema, though it could elaborate on edge cases or interpretation of 'limit'.

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 states a clear verb ('Find') and resource ('notes') with a specific mechanism ('semantically similar'). It distinguishes from list_notes and search_notes by implying semantic rather than lexical matching, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous and actionable.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of its siblings such as search_notes or find_connections. There is no mention of contexts (e.g., need recommendations, clusters) or exclusions (e.g., if a keyword search is intended). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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