memory_graph_edges

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'List', implying a read operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits like read-only, authentication needs, rate limits, or any side effects.

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 extremely concise with a clear title and a bullet-point style for parameters. Every sentence adds value, no wasted words, and the purpose 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?

The tool is simple (listing edges), but the description omits the user_id parameter explanation and does not mention return format or error handling. With no output schema, some additional context about the results would be helpful.

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 explains 3 of the 4 parameters (layer, node_id, limit) and adds meaning by specifying layer values ('user' or 'agent') and node_id semantics (0 = all edges). However, user_id is not mentioned despite being in the schema, and schema coverage is 0%, requiring compensation.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'edges from the epistemic graph', distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_graph_nodes (list nodes) and memory_graph_query (query graph).

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 provides the parameters and their defaults but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It implies usage for exploring graph connections but lacks comparative context.

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