search_nodes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses BM25 ranking, prefix search, phrase search, boolean operators, and filter options. However, it does not mention output format, pagination, result ordering, or behavior on empty results. The 'limit' and 'compress' parameters are not described.

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 sentences front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value without redundancy. The list format for advanced features is efficient. No unnecessary wording.

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 presence of an output schema (handling return values) and the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers search mechanics well. Missing details about 'limit' and 'compress' parameters prevent a perfect score, but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the 'query' parameter's syntax (prefix, phrases, boolean) and describes 'tags', 'entity_types', and 'time_range' with format. It omits 'limit' and 'compress', but covers most parameters with meaningful usage details beyond the 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?

The description explicitly states 'Full-text search with BM25 ranking', clearly identifying the tool's purpose. The name 'search_nodes' reinforces the resource being searched. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'read_graph' (graph traversal) and 'open_nodes' (node retrieval by ID).

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 implies usage for full-text search with filtering capabilities but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. No direct comparison with siblings like 'query_timeline' or 'read_graph' is provided. The agent must infer context from the tool's name and capabilities.

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