hebbrix_search_entities

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

The description discloses a critical asynchronous behavior: entities are enriched asynchronously after a write, not covered by wait_for_index, with a ~30s delay and expected empty results. This is valuable behavioral context beyond any annotation, which is especially important since no annotations are provided.

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 short paragraphs, first sentence states purpose, second gives usage, and the note adds essential behavioral information. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary verbosity.

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 covers purpose, usage context, and a key behavioral caveat, but leaves two of three parameter semantics unexplained and doesn't mention ordering or pagination. The existence of an output schema offsets return-format details, yet the missing parameter info makes it incomplete for full agent self-sufficiency.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only mentions the optional filter on entity_type (the parameter is mentioned by name), but limit and collection_id are completely unexplained. This is a significant gap for a low-coverage 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?

Clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'List entities in the knowledge graph' with example entity types. It also differentiates from siblings by targeting entity listing specifically ('who/what do I know about' questions), which is distinct from search, timeline, or graph query tools.

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?

Provides explicit usage context: 'Use for "who/what do I know about" questions.' This gives clear guidance on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, missing the 'when-not' component for a full 5.

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