search_nodes

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

The description claims a search/read operation, but annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, suggesting potential modification or deletion. This contradiction is not addressed in the description. No behavioral traits beyond the search are disclosed, which is a significant gap given the annotations.

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides usage guidance. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain the return format or pagination (e.g., max results via limit). It also fails to address the conflicting destructiveHint annotation, leaving a major gap in completeness for a tool with four parameters.

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 100%, and the description adds minimal extra meaning beyond repeating the parameters (name substring, type, subtree). The schema itself is sufficiently descriptive, so the description does not significantly enhance understanding.

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 resource (nodes), and the filters (name substring and/or type) within a subtree. It explicitly distinguishes from the sibling 'scan_nodes_by_types' by specifying when to use each, providing strong differentiation.

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 tells when to use this tool ('when you know (part of) the node name') and explicitly names an alternative ('scan_nodes_by_types') for different scenarios. It lacks a 'when not to use' statement but is clear enough for an agent.

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