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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a configuration requirement, which adds some context, but fails to describe key behaviors such as what 'entities' refer to, how results are returned (e.g., format, pagination), performance expectations, or error handling. For a search tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 highly concise and front-loaded: it states the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a necessary prerequisite in the second. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 tool's complexity (semantic search with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'entities' are in this context, how results are structured, or provide examples of use cases. While concise, it fails to compensate for the missing structured data, leaving the agent with insufficient context for effective tool invocation.

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 input schema fully documents the parameters (query, limit, minSimilarity) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining 'semantic similarity' in relation to the query or thresholds. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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: 'Search for entities using semantic similarity.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('entities'), and method ('semantic similarity'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'fuzzy_search' or 'boolean_search', which also search entities but with different methods, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 minimal usage guidance: it mentions a prerequisite ('Requires embedding provider to be configured via MEMORY_EMBEDDING_PROVIDER'), but offers no explicit advice on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'fuzzy_search' or 'boolean_search' from the sibling list. There's no context on scenarios where semantic search is preferred, making it inadequate for informed tool selection.

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