search_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it discloses nothing: not the safety profile (read-only implied by 'search' but never stated), not the 25-result cap enforced by the schema, not pagination via offset, and not the return shape.

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?

It is a single sentence with no padding, but at one clause it is drastically under-specified for a 14-parameter tool. Conciseness here is the result of omission rather than tight writing.

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?

A 14-parameter, zero-required search tool with no annotations and no output schema gets only one vague sentence. An agent would have to guess at parameter semantics and result behavior, which is wholly inadequate given the tool's complexity.

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 0% across 14 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Critical filters such as label, qn_pattern, name_pattern, file_pattern, min_degree/max_degree, relationship, detail, and include_connected are entirely undocumented anywhere.

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 names a verb ('search') and a resource ('structured graph'), and 'within this space snapshot' gives scope. However 'native CBM' is unexplained jargon, and it does not distinguish this from the sibling query_graph, so an agent cannot tell which of the two graph query tools to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus query_graph, search_code, or search_snapshot_text, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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