search_knowledge

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does meaningful work by revealing the hybrid nature of the search: 'Combines semantic search, BM25, and graph traversal.' It does not mention result freshness, permissions, rate limits, or whether results are reranked, but the hybrid mechanism is a useful behavioral disclosure beyond a bare 'search' statement.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose: 'Search factual knowledge in the Graphiti knowledge graph.' The USE WHEN section adds usage context, and the final sentence explains the search mechanism, with no fluff or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter search with an output schema, the description covers the purpose, the underlying techniques, and the main use case. The main completeness gap is the lack of differentiation among the siblings (rag_search, verify_fact, combined_search), and the absence of any clarification of the limit parameter's role leaves a modest but real decision gap for an agent.

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 0%, and the description does not mention query or limit at all. The query parameter's expected format, syntax hints, or semantics, and the meaning of limit, are left entirely to the schema names/defaults, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's minimal documentation.

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 gives a clear verb and resource: 'Search factual knowledge in the Graphiti knowledge graph.' It also clarifies the content types covered ('verified facts, entities, relationships, or structured knowledge' and the hybrid retrieval approach ('semantic search, BM25, and graph traversal'). It does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like rag_search, verify_fact, or combined_search, so it stops short of full discrimination.

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?

'USE WHEN: You need verified facts, entities, relationships, or structured knowledge' clearly states when an agent should consider this tool. However, it provides no exclusions, no 'use instead' guidance, and no comparison to the sibling tools, so it lacks the full when/not-when structure.

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