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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's 'Read-only' reinforces this. It adds context beyond annotations by describing the hierarchical structure and per-node status, and the optional parameters' effect on output (summaries vs full values). No contradictions found, and the description enhances the agent's understanding of behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and efficiently covers usage context and parameter hint in the second sentence. No redundant phrases or unnecessary details—every sentence earns its place.

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 tool's moderate complexity (4 params, output schema present, annotations provided), the description is complete enough. It covers the purpose, usage, and key behavior (read-only, hierarchical). It doesn't detail output format, but the output schema exists and annotations cover safety. The mention of 'per-node status' and 'visualize task graphs' gives sufficient context for selection.

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 the description doesn't need to add much. It does mention the playbook_id format (UUID/GUID) which slightly adds to the schema, but the other parameters (root_key, max_depth, include_values) are not elaborated beyond what schema already provides. It adds minimal semantic value, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool retrieves a hierarchical tree of memories with parent-child relationships and per-node status. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming alternative tools (search_memory, get_memory_context, read_memory) for different use cases, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'Use this to visualize task graphs; use search_memory to filter flat lists, get_memory_context for a tiered prompt view, and read_memory for a single key's full value.' Also specifies the target via playbook_id as UUID or GUID, which is actionable.

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