palinode_cluster_neighbors

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable detail about preprocessing that strips wikilink syntax and '## See also' footers to avoid false positives, enhancing transparency beyond the annotations.

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 four sentences, with the core functionality immediately stated. Each sentence adds value: purpose, usage, preprocessing detail. No unnecessary words.

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 lack of output schema, the description could specify what the tool returns (e.g., list of file paths with scores). However, the purpose and usage are sufficiently clear for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add new meaning beyond the schema, but the mention of 'top-K' and 'semantically related' aligns with parameter purposes. No additional depth is provided.

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 function: find top-K semantically related files that are not linked via wikilinks. It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on unlinked semantic relationships for wiki maintenance.

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 explicitly recommends use during 'wiki-maintenance passes' to surface implicit relationships. While it does not list alternative tools or contraindications, the context is clear and actionable.

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