find_related

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly: it states 'Read-only; no side effects, auth, or rate limits', details the return format ('annotated file rows with shared_tag_count and shared_tags'), and explains empty-result semantics. This exceeds the minimum disclosure expected.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then safety/return details, then empty-result guidance and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, ranking logic, side-effect-free operation, return fields, empty behavior, and alternative tools. It provides a complete picture for an agent to select and 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%—both `file_id` and `limit` have descriptions in the schema. The description only restates the default limit and adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Find') and clearly identifies the resource ('other files sharing tags with the given file') and the ranking criterion ('by shared_tag_count descending'). It distinguishes itself from content-based search tools by focusing on tag-based relationships.

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 addresses the empty-result case, pointing to search/regex_search for content-based discovery and suggest_tags for bootstrapping labels. This gives the agent clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives in a common scenario.

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