memory_graph_nodes

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only indicates a read operation ('List nodes'). It does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or explain default behavior beyond limit.

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 concise with a single line of purpose and a bullet-style Args list. Information is front-loaded, though the structure could be more formal.

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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and the description provides minimal context about the epistemic graph or node properties. For a graph tool, more detail would be helpful, but it adequately covers the basics.

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 0%, but the description adds meaning for all four parameters in the Args block, explaining layer values, user_id, node_type filter, and limit default. This compensates for the sparse schema.

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?

Description states 'List nodes from the epistemic graph' which is a clear verb+resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like memory_graph_edges and memory_graph_query, but lacks 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 like memory_graph_query or memory_graph_edges. No when-not or prerequisite information provided.

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