enox_query

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

For a query tool with no annotations, the description discloses exact/substring matching behavior and mentions default limit. It does not discuss read-only nature or performance implications, but such assumptions are reasonable for a filter query.

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 concise: two sentences plus an example. The action is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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?

While the description explains the tool's purpose and how to use it, it does not describe the output format (e.g., returns list of nodes). Given no output schema, this is a gap. Also, it only contrasts with one sibling, leaving others unaddressed.

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. The description adds value by providing an example usage that shows how parameters combine, going beyond the schema's individual 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Filter nodes in the knowledge graph by type, domain, or name.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from 'semantic_search' by specifying exact/substring matching.

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?

Explicitly recommends use for 'exact filtering when you know what you're looking for' and contrasts with 'semantic_search'. Provides an example. However, it does not mention when to use other sibling tools.

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