find_similar

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It conveys that this is a lookup over already-stored experiences (implying a safe read), but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, permissions, or result limits. An output schema exists, so return format need not be described.

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?

Short, front-loaded with the '查重' purpose, then parameter explanations. No wasted sentences; the structure is a clean purpose-plus-params block.

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 small two-param read-style lookup with an existing output schema, the definition covers purpose and parameters adequately. The main gap is the absence of any explicit behavioral/permission context, which is minor given the read nature.

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 documents both params — title as the item to check and detail as optional — giving enough meaning to invoke correctly, though it adds little syntactic detail.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'find stored experiences similar to a given title/detail' with a clear dedup framing ('查重'). It is distinguishable from generic search by naming its purpose (avoid duplicate entry), though it does not explicitly name search_experience as the sibling it differs 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?

'用于避免重复录入' implies when to use it — before adding an experience — but no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g., search_experience) is given. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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