search

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses the search process (semantic search then graph traversal) and even provides ranking weights (55% similarity, etc.), which is highly transparent. However, it does not mention read-only nature or any potential side effects, though none are expected for a search.

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?

Three sentences: first states purpose, second explains process, third provides ranking details. No fluff, front-loaded with key information. Every sentence adds value.

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 output schema exists, description need not cover return values. It explains search methodology and ranking, which is sufficient. However, it lacks scope information (e.g., is search across all projects?) and does not mention pagination or result limits beyond top_k.

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%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal parameter-specific context: it mentions 'natural language' for query (already in schema) and does not elaborate on top_k beyond default. No added value beyond schema.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Search' and resource 'the knowledge graph', and explains further that it performs semantic search over concepts and traverses the graph for related sessions, errors, and solutions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'search_by_tag' which are more specific.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., search_by_tag). The description only states what it does, not when or when not to use it. Sibling tools imply differentiation but description lacks direct instruction.

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