Graforest MCP

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, which the description doesn't repeat. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: it specifies that the search covers 'all string properties' and returns 'relevance scores', which helps the agent understand the scope and output format. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior.

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 two concise sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place: 'full-text search' defines the method, 'across all string properties' specifies scope, and the second sentence details the return values without 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?

Given the annotations cover safety (read-only, non-destructive) and the description adds behavioral context (search scope, output format), this is reasonably complete for a search tool. However, without an output schema, the description could benefit from more detail on the structure of returned nodes (e.g., property examples), but it's adequate for basic use.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain 'project_code' or 'environment' further). With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate for gaps but doesn't detract either.

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 specific action ('full-text search'), target resource ('across all string properties in the knowledge graph'), and output ('returns matching nodes with their types, properties, and relevance scores'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_knowledge_entity' (specific entity retrieval) and 'traverse_knowledge_graph' (graph traversal).

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 implies usage for text-based search across the knowledge graph but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'list_knowledge_entities' or 'get_knowledge_entity'. It mentions 'full-text search' which suggests text matching, but no explicit guidance on when-not-to-use or direct alternatives is provided.

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