june_enumerate

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: exhaustive retrieval (not top-k), a cap with default 500, and that it returns all matches up to the cap. It doesn't specify performance or side effects, but the core behavior is well communicated.

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 with no superfluous words. It front-loads the purpose ('Exhaustive structured retrieval') and efficiently conveys usage guidance and key details.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description omits details about the return format (e.g., what node fields are included) and how multiple filters combine (AND vs OR). It also doesn't address error scenarios or what happens when the cap is exceeded. The explanation of the default cap is helpful but not fully adequate.

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 description mentions the predicate parameters (terms, regex, node_types, subtype) in context, helping agents understand they are filter criteria. However, it does not provide detailed syntax, data types, or combination logic for the 5 parameters, leaving some ambiguity. The cap parameter is explained briefly.

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 it performs exhaustive structured retrieval returning every matching node, distinguishing itself from june_search's ranked window. It specifies the predicate types (terms, regex, node_types, subtype) and the cap mechanism.

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 advises using this tool for aggregation questions where completeness is needed, contrasting it with june_search's ranked window. This gives clear guidance on when to prefer this tool over a sibling.

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