aiworkhub_manager_context_graph_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds two real traits beyond that: results are 'transcript-backed' (provenance is quoted evidence, not summaries) and matching is 'exact' (though it never says exact-match vs. exact-quote retrieval). It says nothing about result volume, the default limit of 12, or ranking.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and the access role stated first. It is efficient, though the brevity is closer to under-specification than to disciplined concision.

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?

An output schema exists (wrongly inserted into an input-schema field), so return values need not be explained here. For a two-parameter read tool this is a reasonable floor, though the undefined query and limit semantics leave a gap given 60+ sibling tools.

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 carry the parameters and does not: neither 'query' (free text? exact phrase? required?) nor 'limit' (default 12, max?) is explained. The word 'exact' is the only hint about query semantics and it is ambiguous.

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?

States a specific verb (search) and resource (Context Graph evidence) with a qualifier ('exact transcript-backed') that separates it from prose stores like aiworkhub_manager_kb_search or ai_memory_search. It does not name the nearest siblings (context_graph_range, context_graph_related), so differentiation is only partial.

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?

'MANAGER READ:' implies an audience but gives no when-to-use rule. Nothing tells the agent to pick this over context_graph_range (positional lookup), context_graph_related (graph adjacency), or context_graph_rebuild, which live right beside it in the namespace.

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