nyarhi_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that matching occurs against node ids, types, and property values and that results are ranked by relevance. However, it does not mention side effects, read-only status, or how the `store` parameter influences behavior, leaving notable transparency gaps.

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, front-loaded with purpose ('Full-text search over the graph's nodes') and immediately followed by relevant matching details. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, the description omits any account of the `store` parameter, which is likely important for proper invocation. It also does not address how this tool compares to siblings like nyarhi_find or nyarhi_neighbors, leaving a meaningful completeness gap for an otherwise simple tool.

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 input schema has zero property descriptions (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It only explains `term` ('matched against node ids, types, and property values'), while `limit` and `store` are left undocumented in both schema and description. The `store` parameter is particularly opaque, and the description fails to clarify it despite the low schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Full-text search over the graph's nodes.' It further clarifies scope by listing matched elements (node ids, types, property values) and notes that results are relevance-ranked. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like nyarhi_find or nyarhi_neighbors.

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 implies its intended use case—text-based search across graph nodes—but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like nyarhi_find. No exclusions or 'use instead' guidance is provided, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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