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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by describing the return shape (layers, labeled nodes, typed edges, subset counts), the m-prefixed display IDs, and the synthetic core/you nodes. It stops short of pagination or size/perf behavior, but the added context is substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and its bounded nature, then IDs/node conventions, then the recall handoff. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; the trailing negative list is slightly boilerplate but does bound scope.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: layers, nodes with short labels, typed edges, subset counts, and the distinction between synthetic nodes and m-prefixed memory IDs. An agent knows what it will get and what it will not (full text, account-wide totals).

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% and the single limit parameter is fully documented in the schema with range and default. The description adds nothing about limit (e.g., that lowering it truncates visible edges), so it does not go beyond what the schema already provides — 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?

States a specific verb (read/inspect) and resource (bounded visualization of memories and relationships), plus scope limits (authenticated user's account, subset not totals). This clearly separates it from siblings like recall, which the description names explicitly.

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: 'Use recall for full saved context and numeric memory IDs,' which is the key selection decision between the two tools. It also states what the tool is not for (changing memories, enumerating assistants, web search, other users' data), covering both when-to-use and when-not.

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