cos_graph_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the search strategy (semantic + lexical + centrality) and the constrained range for top_k. It does not describe return format or pagination, but the output schema covers return structure, so no significant gap remains.

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 extremely concise: a single purpose statement, one alternative-direction sentence, and two terse parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information (what it does) is front-loaded. No filler or redundant content.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (two params, output schema present, generous sibling context), the description covers purpose, usage boundaries, parameter semantics, and relationships to alternatives. The output schema handles return-value documentation. The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does so thoroughly: 'query' is explained as 'Natural-language or code-ish query' with an example, and 'top_k' is given a numeric range (1–50) that is not present in the schema. This adds real semantic value beyond the bare type and default.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('code symbols'), and clearly indicates the input type (natural-language description) and approach (semantic + lexical + centrality). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool cos_graph_query by explicitly scoping to natural-language searches, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 an explicit usage guideline: 'For a KNOWN name / path / uid, use cos_graph_query instead.' This clearly tells when NOT to use this tool and points to the correct alternative. This is exactly the kind of guidance that helps an agent select correctly among siblings.

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