sqo_memory_graph

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it largely fails: the presence of a mutating 'record' action is never disclosed, nor is persistence behavior, whether notes overwrite prior entries, or permission requirements. Naming the backing store (`.sqo/memory_graph.db`) and the 'Auto-Captured' nature are the only real behavioral signals, and 'auto-captured' arguably conflicts with the existence of a manual record action.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no wasted clauses, which is good, but the front-loaded portion is product branding and a version number that do not help tool selection, while the operationally critical action taxonomy is omitted. Space is spent on the wrong content.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool that includes a write path and has no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum enumerate the three actions and their effects. It leaves 'record' entirely undocumented and gives no sense of what a summary or file_history call returns, so an agent cannot safely invoke it without reading the schema closely.

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 parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema — it hints that file scope drives the relationship queries and that an export produces Mermaid diagrams, but says nothing about the 'note' parameter or what summary returns.

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 names resources (co-edit and bugfix relationships, Mermaid architecture diagrams) and an implied verb (queries / exports), so the general domain is clear. But it leads with marketing/versioning jargon ('Claude-Mem + Graphiti Auto-Captured Temporal Knowledge Graph (v10.0)') and never states the three discrete operations the schema actually exposes (summary, file_history, record), leaving the core purpose only partially resolved.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives despite nearby siblings such as sqo_arch_diagram and sqo_memory_vault that plausibly overlap. The 'per file' phrasing weakly implies file_history usage, but nothing tells the agent when to pick this tool over those, or when to choose summary versus file_history.

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