graphify_search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so description adds little beyond case-insensitivity. It does not disclose the behavior of the 'limit' or 'as_json' parameters, nor any pagination or performance traits. Minimal value beyond 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with key action. No wasted words. However, lacks structure detailing different aspects of usage, such as parameter effects.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, important parameters like limit and as_json are not explained in description. For a tool with 3 parameters and sibling tools, more contextual info (e.g., response format) would improve completeness.

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 description must compensate. It explains 'pattern' implicitly, but 'limit' and 'as_json' are left undocumented. The description adds meaning for only one of three parameters.

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?

Description clearly states 'Search nodes by text in their name/label (case-insensitive)'. The verb 'search' and resource 'nodes' are specific, and the case-insensitivity distinguishes it from potential sibling tools that might be case-sensitive. Compared to siblings like graphify_neighbors, graphify_node_details, and graphify_subgraph, this tool's purpose is distinct.

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?

Usage is implied: use when you need to find nodes by text pattern. However, no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. Sibling tools like graphify_neighbors or graphify_node_details could be alternatives but are not mentioned. The description lacks exclusionary context.

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