memory_graph

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists parameters and actions, omitting side effects, performance considerations, authorization needs, or read-only nature. The tool's behavior (e.g., whether it modifies data) is unclear.

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 short and includes a structured args list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, though the 'Args' block could be integrated more smoothly. No superfluous text.

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 complexity (5 parameters, 4 actions, many siblings), the description is incomplete. It does not explain when to use each action, error conditions, or how it compares to similar tools. Output schema exists but not mentioned, though not required per rules.

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 description adds basic parameter explanations (e.g., query for explore, start for traverse) beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it lacks detail on formats (e.g., edge_patterns syntax) and does not clarify parameters for shortest_path and stats actions.

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 'Explore the knowledge graph' and lists four specific actions (explore, traverse, shortest_path, stats), clarifying it is a multi-purpose graph query tool. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_recall, missing explicit differentiation.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., memory_search for semantic search, memory_recall for specific facts). The description lacks when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information.

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