files_find_related

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral burden and does it: read-only, no side effects, no auth, no rate limits, plus the return shape (annotated rows with shared_tag_count and shared_tags) and the default limit. Nothing about operational behavior is left to inference.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with purpose and ranking, then behavioral facts, then empty-result routing. No sentence is filler; each adds a fact the agent needs.

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?

For a 3-param read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, return fields, empty-result meaning, and sibling routing. It is self-sufficient 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 all three parameters are documented in the schema itself, and the description largely restates them (kind narrows to one content class, default limit 10). The only marginal addition is the ranking field semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (find), resource (other files sharing tags), and ranking rule (shared_tag_count descending) tied to a given file. It is immediately distinguishable from content-based 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?

Names explicit alternatives and the condition selecting them: content-based discovery goes to files_search/files_regex_search, and label bootstrapping goes to tags_suggest. It also interprets the empty-result case, which is exactly the decision an agent faces mid-call.

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