related_memories

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results are ranked ('most strongly linked') and mentions the concept of 'typed' relationships, which is helpful. However, it doesn't explain what 'typed' means or any potential side effects, though 'Show' implies a non-destructive operation.

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 very concise: two sentences plus an args list. It front-loads the primary purpose and includes only essential parameter details with no fluff.

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 simple read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core behavior and all parameters. It doesn't need to explain return values thanks to the output schema. The only gaps are the vague 'typed' terminology and lack of differentiation from similar tools, but these don't undermine overall completeness.

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 meaning beyond the plain schema types and defaults by explaining that memory_id is the starting point to expand from and limit is the max neighbours to return. Since schema coverage is 0%, this compensation is necessary and effective.

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 uses a clear verb ('Show') and identifies the resource ('memories most strongly linked to a given one'). The phrase 'typed neighbours' adds specificity but is not fully explained. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'expand_memory' or 'recall_associative', so it misses some 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?

The description implies usage when you want to explore related memories from a starting point. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over alternatives like 'expand_memory' or 'memory_graph', and no exclusions or preconditions are stated.

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