find_related_conversations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (find related conversations based on specified relationship types) and mentions similarity scores, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential performance characteristics, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. It adds some context about relationship types but leaves gaps in operational transparency.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence clearly states the purpose and relationship types, while the second provides usage guidance. There's minimal waste, though the second sentence could be slightly more concise. The structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, relationship-based matching), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage context but lacks details about behavioral characteristics, return format, error handling, and performance considerations. It's complete enough for basic understanding but has gaps for operational use.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description mentions relationship types (files, folders, languages, size, temporal) which aligns with the 'relationshipTypes' parameter, but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what's in the schema descriptions. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('find conversations related to') and resources ('reference conversation'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on relationship-based discovery rather than listing, searching, exporting, or analyzing conversations. It explicitly mentions the relationship types (files, folders, languages, size, temporal) that differentiate its functionality.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'to discover related discussions, find conversations about the same codebase/project, identify similar problem-solving sessions, or trace the evolution of ideas across multiple conversations.' This gives clear context for application scenarios, though it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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