memory_graph

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 does disclose that the Graphify entity graph is included only if built, and that focus_id centers the diagram. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention any limitations or resource implications.

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: a one-sentence overview followed by a structured args list. Every piece adds value, and it is front-loaded with the tool's purpose.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and a key conditional behavior. An output schema exists to describe return values, so the lack of return format details is acceptable. It is complete enough, though it could benefit from explicit usage examples or edge-case handling (e.g., when the entity graph isn't built).

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's args section explains each parameter clearly: project scopes to a project, focus_id centers the diagram, and include_entities toggles the entity graph summary. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of documentation.

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 tool provides an overview of the brain as a graph, listing specific outputs such as hubs, orphans, components, a Mermaid diagram, and the Graphify entity graph. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like recall and brain_status, which serve different purposes.

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 implies use for graph overview and analysis but does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use this for structural queries' or 'instead of list_memories'.

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