Query Knowledge

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

The critical disclosure is that this is not a pure read: with an active session, returned nodes are reactivated and their decay score boosted, while node content is unchanged. That explains why annotations carry readOnlyHint=false with idempotentHint=false, which the description reinforces rather than contradicts. It stops short of stating the exact write fields (last_activated, session_activated), which only the schema covers.

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 tightly packed sentences that front-load the search purpose, then escalation guidance, then the side-effect warning. Every sentence earns its place; only the parenthetical could be trimmed slightly.

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?

For a 16-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the query modes, ranking, spreading activation, and the non-obvious write side effect. Minor gaps remain around the edge/neighbor inclusion flags and the limit, but those are fully specified in the schema, so an agent has what it needs to call correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented, including the read_only string-coercion caveat and enum values. The description adds conceptual meaning for spread and read_only but says nothing about the other 14 parameters, so it only marginally exceeds the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search knowledge'), names the retrieval modes (semantic similarity, type, status, recency) and the return ('nodes ranked by relevance'). This is unambiguously the read/query tool among siblings like kg_node_create, kg_node_update, and kg_relate.

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?

Gives concrete conditional guidance: 'Use spread=true to find related nodes via spreading activation' and 'pass read_only=true to search without changing anything.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use direction versus siblings (e.g., kg_meta_model), but the situational guidance for the two tricky flags is clear.

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