search_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the search function but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of nodes with details), pagination behavior, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a search tool and front-loads the key information.

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 complexity of a search operation, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or the semantics of the 'onlyTriggers' parameter, leaving the agent with insufficient context 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning neither parameter ('query' and 'onlyTriggers') is documented in the schema. The description only mentions 'by name', which partially explains the 'query' parameter but doesn't clarify its format (e.g., exact match vs. substring) or the purpose of 'onlyTriggers'. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 action ('Search') and resource ('nodes from the imported n8n catalog'), with the specific scope 'by name' distinguishing it from potential sibling tools like 'suggest_nodes_for_task' or 'list_node_types'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_node_type' which might retrieve a single node by ID rather than searching by name.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suggest_nodes_for_task' (for task-based suggestions) or 'list_node_types' (for unfiltered listing). There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an imported catalog) or exclusions (e.g., not for workflow execution).

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