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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does usefully disclose the shape of the result (updates, extends, derives with their meanings), and 'Get' implies a read-only operation. But it says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid memory_id, chain depth limits, or whether the traversal is transitive.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return categories. Every clause adds information and nothing is redundant.

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 simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and the three result types an agent will encounter. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior (invalid ID, truncation), which is minor but not covered.

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% for the single memory_id parameter, which the schema already documents as a UUID to trace. The description only echoes 'for a memory' and adds no format, scoping, or depth semantics beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Get the knowledge chain for a memory') and clarifies the concept with 'showing how it evolved.' It distinguishes itself conceptually from siblings like get_timeline or recall by framing the result as an evolution chain, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 by 'showing how it evolved' — an agent can infer it should use this when tracing a single memory's lineage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_timeline/recall guidance and no stated preconditions, leaving routing to inference.

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