Search Nodes

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context by specifying what data is searched (entity names, types, observations) and what is returned (entities and connected relations), which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action ('Keyword search') and resource ('nodes in the knowledge graph'), followed by match criteria and return value. Every word added value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 output schema exists (though not shown in the prompt), the description need not detail return format. The tool is a simple read-only search with well-annotated semantics and schema-complete parameters. Minor gaps like pagination or exact matching behavior are acceptable because annotations and schema cover safety and parameter details.

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% for both parameters (query and namespace). The description mirrors some of the query parameter semantics but does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 tool performs a keyword search over nodes in a knowledge graph, matching by entity names, types, and observations, and returns entities with connected relations. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_graph (full graph dump) and open_nodes (likely direct access) by emphasizing the search use case.

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 the tool is for searching nodes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives like read_graph or open_nodes. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are provided, so the usage context is clear but not explicit about trade-offs.

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