node_semantic_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the operation and return shape. It does not disclose read-only semantics, permission requirements, cost/latency, behavior on missing diagrams, or how ties/empty results are handled. "Search" weakly implies a read, but nothing is stated.

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 leading sentence is front-loaded with the core purpose, and the Args/Returns structure is easy to scan. The format is slightly boilerplate-heavy, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so the Returns section is largely redundant. Parameter meaning is covered, but the description omits usage context and any behavioral caveats, leaving it only adequately complete for a four-parameter retrieval tool with zero schema documentation.

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 — and it does, documenting all four parameters including the semantic meaning of `threshold` ("minimum cosine similarity score to include") and `top_k` ("maximum number of results"). The defaults it cites are already in the schema, but the added meaning is real.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Search for nodes") plus the scope qualifier ("semantically similar to a target embedding"), which is enough to distinguish it from lexical/pattern siblings like pattern_match. It does not explicitly name or differentiate against any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied by the operation itself — an agent can infer it is for embedding-based retrieval, but there is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternative among the many navigation/search siblings. This is minimum-viable implied context, not guidance.

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