Enhanced Knowledge Graph Memory Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the boolean operators but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as what data is searched (e.g., entities, observations), whether it's read-only or has side effects, performance expectations, or output format. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes essential operational detail (the boolean operators), making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a search tool with 4 parameters, low schema coverage (25%), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on what the tool searches, how results are returned, error handling, or interaction with other parameters beyond the query. This leaves too much undefined for effective agent use.

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 low at 25%, with only the 'query' parameter documented. The description adds minimal value by implying the query uses boolean operators, but it doesn't explain the semantics of other parameters like 'tags', 'minImportance', or 'maxImportance'. This partially compensates but falls short of fully addressing the coverage gap.

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 action ('Perform boolean search') and the mechanism ('with AND, OR, NOT operators'), which distinguishes it from simple search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fuzzy_search', 'semantic_search', or 'search_nodes', which likely serve similar search purposes but with different methods.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling search tools (e.g., fuzzy_search, semantic_search, search_nodes), there's no indication of when boolean search is preferred, what prerequisites exist, or any exclusions for its use.

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