万忆图谱搜索

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses the graph construction mechanism (automatic edge creation on write, with edge types semantic-similar/same-category) and the traversal nature of the search. However, it does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, how paging or result shapes behave, or any rate-limit/performance implications of multi-hop traversal.

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 one dense, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and mechanism. The parenthetical about v5.3 auto-edge-creation adds useful graph semantics without bloating the text. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name exists.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main operational aspects: entity-based query, multi-hop depth, semantic association discovery, and the underlying edge types. It does not describe return-value structure or explicitly address edge cases, but for a retrieval-oriented tool the provided context is largely sufficient. The main gap is the absence of any statement about safety or side effects, but the description's '检索' wording implies read-only behavior.

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 schema already explains query, depth, and limit. The description adds the conceptual framing that the query is an entity and depth corresponds to hops, but this is largely implied rather than explicitly tied to parameters. It does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it performs knowledge-graph expansion retrieval via multi-hop traversal from an entity node to discover semantically related memories. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like 万忆召回记忆 or 万忆轨迹回放 because it emphasizes graph structure and multi-hop traversal. The scope is concrete and not a tautology of the tool name.

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 makes the usage context reasonably clear: an agent should use this tool when it has an entity and wants to explore related memories through graph edges. It neither explicitly names alternatives nor gives when-not-to-use guidance, but the traversal-oriented framing implies when it is appropriate relative to sibling tools. No misleading guidance is present.

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