search_nodes

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose key behaviors: case-insensitive token matching across specific fields, and that it returns matching entities with their observations. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free, nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or error behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 three short, focused sentences. It front-loads the primary purpose, then adds matching behavior and return content. Every sentence adds useful information, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 tool with a single parameter and a provided output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers what is searched, the matching semantics, and what is returned. It does not mention output limits or pagination, but the existence of an output schema helps fill in return structure. Overall, an agent has enough context to invoke the 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?

The schema provides no description for `query` (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. The description explains that the query is matched case-insensitively via token match across entity names, types, and observation content, giving meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema. It lacks examples or syntax details, but for a single simple string parameter, this is sufficient.

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 function: 'Search for nodes in the knowledge graph.' It specifies the resource (nodes) and the action (search), and adds detail about matching across entity names, types, and observation content. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like `search_similar` or `read_graph`, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage context is implied: users would employ this tool when they need to find nodes in the knowledge graph based on text tokens. The description gives no explicit 'when to use' vs 'when not to use' guidance and mentions no alternatives, so it relies on the agent to infer applicability from the tool's name and text.

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