graph_search_concept

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

No annotations are present, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions search criteria and parameters but omits key details such as behavior on no results, pagination, performance characteristics, or error handling. The existence of an output schema is not leveraged in the description.

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 very short (two lines) and includes parameter explanations, avoiding unnecessary fluff. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from parameter details) without losing conciseness.

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 that an output schema exists and parameters are few, the description is minimally adequate for a basic search tool. It covers the core functionality but lacks edge-case handling, error states, or performance notes that would make it fully complete for an agent unfamiliar with SNOMED.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that 'keyword' is an FSN substring or sctid, and 'limit' is the number of returned results. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensation is valuable, though it could specify the default limit explicitly.

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 explicitly states the tool searches for concepts in the SNOMED graph using FSN or sctid. It clearly identifies the verb ('检索' - retrieve/search) and resource ('概念' - concepts), and differentiates from the sibling tool graph_get_related by specifying the search method.

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?

No guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling graph_get_related is listed but the description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent without guidance for choosing the appropriate tool.

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