find_related_capsules

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

The description states 'Never merges automatically,' which is a useful behavioral guardrail clarifying that the tool only returns candidates without mutating state. However, with zero annotations and no output schema, the description remains thin—it doesn't disclose response format, pagination, ordering, rate limits, or what 'reason for the match' looks like. For an investigation tool with no annotation coverage, the behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource, zero wasted words. Efficient and scannable.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters (including a symptom_signature concept that is non-trivial), no output schema, and no annotations. The description mentions the match reason output and non-merging behavior, which helps, but leaves significant gaps: what constitutes 'related' for each matching dimension, how time window interacts with start/end, what a symptom signature means, and return format details. Given the schema/annotation poverty, more depth is warranted for a full 5, but the core purpose and key output are covered.

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. It names three matching dimensions (service/environment/symptom/time window) and mentions the output reason, which maps loosely to parameters. However, it does not explain the time-window semantics or interaction between start, end, and window_minutes, nor the symptom_signature format. It adds some value but under-compensates for the total 0% schema coverage across 7 params.

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?

'Find existing capsules matching a service/environment/symptom/time window' uses a specific verb and resource (capsules), lists the four matching dimensions, and the sibling context (start_investigation, get_capsule, compare_capsules) suggests this is a discovery/search tool distinct from fetching a single capsule. The purpose is clear and well-differentiated.

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?

The description states this finds candidates and never merges, which implies it's a pre-merge discovery step among the sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this vs compare_capsules or get_capsule, nor provide exclusion criteria or clearly frame it as the discovery/pre-check tool. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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