graph_cross_project

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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral constraint: cross-project search is denied and only the current project's vault is searched. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail error behavior or authentication requirements.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The core scope is front-loaded, and the denial of cross-project search is stated directly and economically.

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 two-parameter read-only search tool, the description plus schema and annotations cover the essential information: scope, denial of cross-project access, and parameter definitions. No output schema exists, but search results are predictable enough that the description is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'query' and 'limit'. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the general search action, so it meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 states a specific action ('Search') and a bounded resource ('current project's vault only'), and explicitly denies cross-project scope. It doesn't name sibling tools, but the scope restriction clearly differentiates it from a cross-project search tool.

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 clearly scopes usage to the current project's vault and states that cross-project search is denied, which provides an implicit when-not. However, it doesn't name alternatives like 'search' or 'graph_related' or explain when to prefer them.

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