nyarhi_find

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 only covers filter mechanics and does not mention whether the tool is read-only, what side effects it might have, or what happens when no filters are supplied. This is a significant gap for a graph query tool.

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 two sentences long and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter explanations are compact and each sentence earns its place. No filler 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?

The description covers all parameters but leaves ambiguity around the store parameter ('an optional store file' does not explain what a store is or what happens if omitted). It also doesn't clarify whether filters combine or what is returned by default. Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, this is a clear but notable gap.

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?

The description fully compensates for the 0% schema coverage by explaining all three parameters: node_type (type), where with a k=v format and example (status=critical), and store as an optional file. This adds critical meaning beyond the bare parameter names. Minor naming mismatch (node_type vs type) is noted but does not undermine the clarity.

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 finds nodes in the knowledge graph, which is a specific verb+resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like nyarhi_search or nyarhi_neighbors, which also return nodes but in different ways.

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 explains how to use the filters (node_type, where, store) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool rather than alternatives. The usage is implied through parameter semantics, not directly stated.

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