KnowledgeSmith 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 that results include node summaries with relationships, which adds context beyond basic search functionality. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'search' but not explicit).

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, note on node summaries, parameter explanations, return value, and an example. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though the entity filtering note is repeated in the parameter list, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does a good job explaining parameters and the return value. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return structure. It could improve by addressing behavioral aspects like error cases or performance, but it's largely complete for a search 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all parameters: 'query' as the search query, 'group_ids' to filter results, 'max_nodes' with default, 'center_node_uuid' to center search, and 'entity' with permitted values. This adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could elaborate on how 'center_node_uuid' affects results.

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 for 'relevant node summaries' in 'graph memory' and specifies these summaries contain 'a summary of all of a node's relationships with other nodes.' This provides a specific verb ('search') and resource ('graph memory nodes'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_memory_facts' beyond mentioning node summaries versus facts.

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 like 'search_memory_facts' or other siblings. It mentions filtering by entity types 'Preference' and 'Procedure' but doesn't explain when this filtering is appropriate or what distinguishes this search from other search tools in the server.

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