Enhanced Knowledge Graph Memory Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'typo tolerance' which is useful context, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., results format, ranking), whether it has performance characteristics or rate limits, or what happens with the various parameters. For a search tool with 5 parameters, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Perform' (action), 'fuzzy search' (function), 'with typo tolerance' (key differentiation). There's zero waste or redundancy.

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?

For a search tool with 5 parameters (3 undocumented), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, or the purpose of most parameters. The 'typo tolerance' hint is helpful but insufficient given the tool's complexity and lack of structured 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 only 40% (2 of 5 parameters have descriptions), so the description needs to compensate but doesn't mention any parameters. The description's 'typo tolerance' hint relates to the 'query' parameter's behavior, but doesn't explain the purpose of 'threshold', 'tags', 'minImportance', or 'maxImportance'. This provides minimal value beyond the schema.

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's function ('Perform fuzzy search') and adds a key behavioral trait ('with typo tolerance'), which distinguishes it from exact-match search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'boolean_search', 'semantic_search', or 'hybrid_search', which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'boolean_search' or 'semantic_search' from the sibling list. It mentions 'typo tolerance' which implies usage for queries with potential spelling errors, but doesn't specify when other search methods would be more appropriate or what the trade-offs are.

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