Elasticsearch Knowledge Graph for MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions AI-driven retrieval and token quota implications for 'include_lines', but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or what the response format looks like. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.

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, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. While it could potentially benefit from more detail given the tool's complexity, what's present is well-structured without wasted words.

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 complex AI-driven file inspection tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how results are structured, what 'relevant content' means operationally, or how the AI component works. With no annotations and no output schema, users need more guidance about the tool's behavior and outputs.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain how parameters interact, provide examples, or clarify edge cases. With complete schema coverage, the baseline 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's purpose as 'Agent driven file inspection that uses AI to retrieve relevant content from multiple files.' It specifies the verb ('inspect'), resource ('files'), and method ('uses AI to retrieve relevant content'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_nodes' or 'inspect_knowledge_graph' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'search_nodes' or 'inspect_knowledge_graph' that might be relevant for similar tasks. The only implied usage is for AI-driven file content retrieval, but no explicit context or exclusions are provided.

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