search_nodes

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

As annotations are absent, the description carries full burden. It explains the BM25 algorithm, relevance sorting, and detailed FTS5 query syntax with auto-conversion. Missing are potential error conditions or permission requirements, but core behavior is well-covered.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose and then detail query syntax. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description lacks details about the structure of returned entities (e.g., fields, scores) and pagination behavior, leaving gaps for an agent to understand the output. While the query behavior is well-explained, the absence of output schema means more completeness is needed.

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 provides 100% coverage, but the description adds valuable context for the query parameter by explaining FTS5 syntax and auto-conversion, enriching semantic meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a full-text search over entities with BM25 ranking and relevance sorting. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_graph or add_observations, which are not search-focused.

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 versus alternatives is provided. Since no other search tool exists among siblings, the usage is implied, but explicit recommendations for scenarios or exclusions would improve the score.

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