search_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses search specifics (matches against names, types, observations) and case-insensitivity, but omits details like result limits, pagination, or error handling. The behavior is generally clear but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details. No redundant phrases. Every word contributes.

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 a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers core behavior. It could mention that results are nodes or hint at result structure, but the output schema presumably handles that. Almost complete.

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?

With no schema description coverage (0%), the description adds meaningful context: the query is matched case-insensitively against three specific fields. This is essential for correct usage beyond the bare parameter name.

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 that the tool searches for nodes in a knowledge graph based on a query. It specifies the search targets (entity names, types, observation content) and notes case-insensitivity, making it distinct from sibling tools like 'open_nodes' or 'read_graph'.

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 should be used for searching but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., 'open_nodes' for retrieving specific nodes). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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