graph_search

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; it does state that the tool avoids loading the full project, which is useful performance context. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination behavior, permissions, or whether results are limited to graph nodes only, leaving notable gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 one tightly written sentence with no filler and the key efficiency trait front-loaded. It is concise at the cost of missing detail, but structurally it is easy to parse.

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 tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is insufficient context. It does not explain how to construct a query, what the states/kinds enum values are, what includeStructured changes, or what a successful search returns.

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 the description must compensate for undocumented parameters, and it does not. The seven parameters (kinds, limit, query, locale, states, projectRoot, includeStructured) receive no explanation beyond the bare schema names and types, leaving an agent to guess semantics and value formats.

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 names a specific operation ('Search') and resource ('graph entities and source paths'), and adds a meaningful scope qualifier about not loading the whole project. It is clear enough to separate from mutation siblings like graph_mutate and graph_patch, though it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling.

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 phrase 'without loading the entire project' implies this is the lightweight, targeted-search option versus heavier project tools, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. There is no mention of alternatives such as project_map, entity_open, or graph_validate.

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