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 discloses behavioral traits like 'automatic query planning,' 'reflection-based refinement,' and iterative improvement until an adequacy threshold is met. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what constitutes 'adequate' results beyond the parameter, leaving gaps for a mutation-like process.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality. It is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Intelligent search...') and follows with iterative behavior. There is no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 (iterative refinement tool), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the iterative nature and key parameters implicitly, but fails to explain return values, error cases, or performance implications, which are crucial for an agent to use it effectively without structured output guidance.

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 schema already documents all 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'adequacyThreshold' relates to 'iteratively improves' or the impact of 'includePlan.' With high coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 performs 'intelligent search with automatic query planning and reflection-based refinement' and 'iteratively improves results until adequate,' which specifies the verb (search with refinement) and resource (results). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'search_auto,' 'semantic_search,' or 'hybrid_search,' which appear to be related search alternatives.

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. It mentions 'iteratively improves results until adequate,' which implies usage for quality refinement, but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions compared to other search tools in the sibling list. This leaves the agent without clear decision criteria.

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