KnowledgeSmith MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool returns a list of fact dictionaries and includes an example, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes a 'fact' in this context. It's minimally adequate but misses key behavioral traits.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (description, args, returns, example) and minimal fluff. The example is helpful but slightly verbose; overall, it's efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers parameter semantics and basic behavior, though it could improve by addressing usage guidelines and more behavioral context like search scope or limitations.

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 adds meaningful context for all parameters: 'query' as the search query, 'group_ids' for filtering, 'max_facts' for limiting results with a default, and 'center_node_uuid' for centering searches. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could explain parameter interactions or formats more.

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 searches for facts in graph memory with the verb 'search' and resource 'graph memory for relevant facts'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_memory_nodes' by focusing on facts rather than nodes, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_memory_nodes' or other siblings. The description provides basic usage through the example but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or comparisons to help the agent choose between similar tools.

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