search_nodes_semantic

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral transparency. It discloses that the tool uses semantic vector similarity and can find entities without exact keyword matches. However, it does not mention any potential limitations (e.g., performance, privacy, or handling of ambiguous queries) or the nature of results beyond identification.

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 two sentences long, no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides a critical comparison and example. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has only two simple parameters and no nested objects or output schema, the description is almost complete. It explains the unique functionality. However, since there is no output schema, the description could have briefly mentioned what the return value contains (e.g., list of nodes with IDs and names). Still, it's sufficient for a straightforward tool.

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 100% with both parameters described. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that the 'query' parameter expects a natural language query and illustrating with an example. For 'limit', it repeats the default but the schema already has that. Overall, adds moderate extra meaning.

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 performs semantic vector similarity search in the knowledge graph, uses a strong verb-resource pair, and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool search_nodes by contrasting exact text matching vs meaning-based search. An example further clarifies the purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus the alternative search_nodes: 'Unlike search_nodes which does exact text matching, this finds entities by meaning.' This direct comparison provides clear usage guidance and a concrete example scenario.

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