mcp_search_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'substring matching' but omits critical details like case sensitivity, scope of search (e.g., nodes/relationships), and whether the tool is read-only. This leaves the agent uncertain about behavior.

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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place with specific verb and resource.

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 tool is simple (one parameter, output schema exists), but the description does not clarify the substring matching behavior or what entity types are searched. The output schema exists but the agent might benefit from knowing the matching semantics. Overall adequate but has gaps.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'query', and the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema's description. It does not provide format, length limits, or examples beyond the schema. Baseline 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 searches entities by name/id substring matching in a Neo4j knowledge graph. It uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('entities'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'search_memories' (searches memories) and 'mcp_get_entity' (likely gets a specific entity).

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It neither mentions alternatives nor exclusions. Usage is implied (searching entities), but no differentiation from similar tools like 'list_entities' or 'search_memories' is given.

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