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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the access-scoping behavior ('graphs YOU can read and ingest into') and the bootstrap role in the toolchain. It does not discuss pagination or result size, which keeps it short of a 5.

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, no filler. The identity/scope statement comes first and the workflow instruction second, so the most important framing is front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, yet the description still highlights the one output field that matters for chaining (`slug`). For a zero-parameter discovery tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds cross-tool semantics by explaining that the returned `slug` is fed into the `memory` argument of every other tool, clarifying the intended use of the output field even though it is not an input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the graphs') and immediately disambiguates the naming mismatch by making clear that 'memories' are graphs the caller can access. The permission scope ('YOU can read and ingest into') tells the agent this is a scoped, personalized listing, distinct from any sibling operation.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Call this first, then pass the chosen `slug` as the `memory` argument to every other tool.' This gives both the sequencing (first) and the follow-up action, which is exactly the guidance a discovery tool needs. No competing sibling performs this function, so no exclusion is required.

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