files.find_related

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and meets it: it declares read-only behavior, no side effects, no auth, and no rate limits. It also discloses return shape (`shared_tag_count`, `shared_tags`) and empty-result semantics, giving the agent strong expectations.

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 compact and every sentence earns its place: core action, safety profile, return fields, empty-result guidance, alternatives, and parameter notes. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description tells the agent exactly what to expect from the return value and how to interpret an empty result. It also covers fallback tools and parameter behavior, leaving no practical gaps for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents `file_id`, `kind`, and `limit`. The description restates `kind` and the default limit but adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a concrete verb-resource pair: 'Find other files sharing tags with the given file,' and adds ranking by `shared_tag_count` descending. It clearly distinguishes this tag-based relation tool from content-search siblings like `files.search` and `files.regex_search`.

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?

It explicitly names alternatives and the conditions that select them: empty results mean fall back to `files.search`/`files.regex_search` for content discovery, or `tags.suggest` to bootstrap labels. It also states how `kind` narrows results and what the default limit is.

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