find_similar

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that self is excluded when anchoring on `ref` and that `text` is embedded on the fly, but both facts are duplicated verbatim in the schema property descriptions. Useful but adds little beyond structured data.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, followed by when to use it and the anchoring mechanics. Every sentence earns its place and nothing is padded.

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 6-parameter read-only lookup with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers purpose, workflow context and anchor selection. The only gap is that it doesn't hint at the return shape (e.g. scored neighbours), which an agent selecting among recall/memory_list might want.

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 six parameters are already fully documented (ref, text, limit, project, category, min_relevance). The description adds only a reinforcing framing of ref-vs-text anchoring, not new syntax or constraint detail, 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+resource: 'Surface memories semantically near an existing ref or free-form text.' An agent immediately knows this is a semantic-neighbour lookup. However, it does not name or contrast against the obvious sibling (recall), so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Explicitly names the scenario: 'Use during consolidation/dream workflows to find overlap and dedupe candidates,' and clarifies the two anchoring modes (ref vs text). It stops short of stating when NOT to use it or pointing to `recall` as the general-purpose alternative.

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