search_cypher_snippets

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and offers very little. It discloses no behavioral traits such as how search_type changes the search (text, tag, pattern), whether matching is exact or fuzzy, case sensitivity, or how limit affects results. The description essentially restates the tool's name and adds no insight into its inner workings.

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, concise sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource. While it's brief, it's structurally efficient for the limited content it provides, earning a solid score for conciseness.

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?

With a simple schema and an output schema present, the description still falls short. It does not explain search semantics, how to choose between text/tag/pattern, or the behavior of limit. The lack of usage guidance and parameter explanation makes the tool incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly in various scenarios.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'keyword, tag, or pattern' which loosely maps to search_type but doesn't explain the exact meaning of query_text, limit, or how search_type selects the search mode. Limit is entirely ignored. This minimal mention does not sufficiently clarify 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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'Cypher snippets' with specific criteria ('by keyword, tag, or pattern'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_cypher_snippets (which probably lists all) and get_cypher_snippet (which retrieves one), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this should be used over list_cypher_snippets for filtering or when a user needs to find snippets by specific search terms. The description simply states what it does, not the context of use.

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