search_similar

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'semantically similar documents' and the database type, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as how similarity is measured, whether results are ranked, what happens with no matches, or any rate limits or permissions required. This leaves significant gaps for a search operation.

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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a basic tool description, though it could benefit from additional context to improve completeness without sacrificing brevity.

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 complexity of a similarity search tool with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, return values, and differentiation from siblings, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional context.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no information about the four parameters (query, content_filter, metadata_filter, num_results), their meanings, formats, or usage. The mention of 'semantically similar' hints at the query parameter's purpose but doesn't clarify semantics, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 action ('Search for') and target resource ('semantically similar documents in the Chroma vector database'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_documents' by specifying semantic similarity search rather than simple listing, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_documents' or 'read_document'. The description implies usage for similarity searches but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context 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.