search_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the search is read-only, what it returns, or any limitations (e.g., pagination, scope). It only says 'search for nodes' without clarifying behavior beyond that obvious action, leaving the agent without safety or side-effect information.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently, earning its place without any waste. This is an ideal level of conciseness for a simple tool.

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?

The tool has one parameter and no output schema, so complexity is low. However, the lack of annotations and absence of any usage guidance or behavioral context makes the description only minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose but omits important context like safety (read vs. write) and relationship to the sibling 'semantic_search' tool, leaving gaps for the agent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The input schema already provides a clear description of the 'query' parameter ('match against entity names, types, and observation content'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 tool's function: 'Search for nodes in your Memento MCP knowledge graph memory based on a query.' It specifies a verb ('search'), a resource ('nodes'), and a mechanism ('based on a query'). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'semantic_search', which likely performs a similar function, so it misses the opportunity to differentiate.

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 query-based search of nodes, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'semantic_search' or 'open_nodes'. There are no stated exclusions or alternative tool references, so the guidance is only implied, not explicit.

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