search_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'searches' the graph, implying a read‑only operation, but does not explicitly confirm that, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or how results are returned (e.g., sorted, paginated). The lack of explicit behavioral info and absence of annotations means an agent cannot assess safety or performance expectations.

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 a single, well‑formed sentence that is front‑loaded with the action and resource. There is no redundancy or filler language. Every word contributes to the core meaning, and it is short enough to be read quickly without sacrificing clarity. This is an appropriate level of conciseness for the tool.

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, the description is not required to explain return values, but it must still cover the operational context. The description lacks details about when to use the tool, how parameters interrelate, any search behavior (e.g., prefix matching, case sensitivity), or potential edge cases. With three parameters and zero schema descriptions, the definition is incomplete for an agent to use correctly without further investigation.

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 clarify the meaning of each parameter. It partially does for 'query' by indicating it can be a class, qualified name, or method, but it says nothing about 'limit' or 'version'. These parameters are left completely unexplained, and no defaults or expected formats are mentioned. The description only adds minimal semantic value for one of the three parameters.

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 verb ('Search') and a precise resource ('the bounded synthetic graph'), and further qualifies search criteria ('by class, qualified name, or method'). This makes the tool's function unambiguous and clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are all about generating or validating Java sources rather than searching a graph. The phrase 'bounded' also hints at a limited dataset scope, adding useful context.

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 its siblings or any other alternative. It does not state conditions like 'use this when you need to locate a fixture by name' or mention any exclusion criteria. An agent must infer from the tool name and description alone, which is insufficient for routing decisions among tools with similar purposes.

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