query_concepts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description goes further: it explains the grammar (case-insensitive, whitespace-tolerant), enum validation with nearest-value hints, and the special growthHint behavior when total=0. This adds rich behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, with no contradiction.

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?

Though it is longer than typical descriptions, the length is fully earned: a DSL grammar cannot be conveyed in a sentence. The structure is logical — purpose, grammar, keys, example, special case — and front-loads the most critical scoping information. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a 2-param tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed to invoke correctly: it explains the DSL grammar, valid keys, the limit default (via schema), the growthHint edge case, and even gives query examples. The contrast with find_path removes selection ambiguity. Nothing an agent needs is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both params are already documented. The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it defines the full filter grammar, supported keys, and gives a working example. It also clarifies that kind and has(...) keys are enum-validated, which the schema does not mention. This far exceeds the baseline of 3.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'search vault nodes by predicate' and immediately frames its niche as saved-filter/smart-list cases. It explicitly names the sibling (find_path) that it is not, making distinction trivial. Examples like 'which capabilities have zero elements?' ground the purpose concretely.

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 states when to use it ('saved-filter / smart-list cases') and when not to ('find_path (BFS) cannot answer'), and provides concrete example queries. It makes the selection rule explicit rather than implied, leaving no ambiguity about the target use case.

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