Search Knowledge Graph

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds that the search uses Zep's semantic search, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it does not disclose result format, return value structure, or any limitations, so it stays at the baseline.

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 sentences with no filler. The key detail about semantic search is included. It is efficient and front-loaded, though slightly generic. It earns a 4 because it is well-structured and concise without sacrificing the core message.

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?

With no output schema and a large set of sibling tools, the description does not provide enough context about what results look like or how this tool differs from others. It does not explain limit behavior, result ordering, or whether the search is graph-scoped (graph_id implies it). This lack of guidance makes it incomplete for an AI agent.

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 input schema describes all three parameters with meaningful descriptions (query, graph_id, limit). The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, and since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Search the knowledge graph for facts and information') and names the resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling retrieval tools like mirofish_get_entities or mirofish_get_graph_data, so it lacks the specificity needed for one-to-one tool selection.

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?

It provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no explicit use cases, exclusions, or references to sibling tools, leaving the agent without direction on when this search is preferred over other query methods.

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