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. It discloses that the tool automatically selects methods and returns reasoning, which adds value beyond basic search functionality. However, it lacks details on performance characteristics, error handling, or what 'best' means operationally.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second describes the return value. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the automatic selection behavior and return format but lacks details on search algorithms used, performance trade-offs, or error conditions that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's parameter documentation. It mentions 'query characteristics' but doesn't explain how the 'query' parameter influences method selection or what 'graph size' refers to in practice.

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 purpose: 'Automatically select and execute the best search method based on query characteristics and graph size.' It specifies the verb ('select and execute') and resource ('search method'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling search tools like 'boolean_search' or 'semantic_search'.

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 alternative search methods. It mentions 'based on query characteristics and graph size' but doesn't specify what characteristics trigger which methods or when to prefer this over direct search tools like 'fuzzy_search' or 'hybrid_search'.

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