aura_related

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two useful traits: the result count (exactly 3) and the ranking basis (tag + text overlap). It says nothing about permissions, error/empty behavior, or how results are ordered when overlap ties.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the core concept ('More-like-this') and the return size stated immediately. 'Discovery never dead-ends' is mild marketing padding, but the overall entry is tight and earns nearly all of its space.

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-param read tool with no output schema, the description tells the agent what comes back (3 related items) and how they are chosen, which is the minimum an agent needs. It omits what to do with the returned ids, which would be expected of a discovery tool feeding other tools, and leaves the id parameter entirely unexplained.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It conceptually maps 'kind' to the three catalog types, but that merely restates the schema's own enum values, and 'id' is never explained (format, whether it is a slug, or what it identifies). The compensation falls well short of what two undocumented params need.

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 capability ('more-like-this') with a bounded output ('3 related items') and names the exact resource domain (component/skill/design-system) plus the matching mechanism (tag + text overlap). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like aura_search_components or aura_recommend, though it never names the alternatives it is distinct from.

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?

'Discovery never dead-ends' strongly implies the use case of finding related items when a direct search or lookup comes up short, but this is inference rather than explicit guidance. It does not say when to prefer this over aura_recommend, aura_search_all, or the individual search tools.

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