memento_graph

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only lists actions without describing side effects, persistence, permissions, or error states. For example, 'add_entity' is not explained to create a persistent node. Very limited transparency beyond the action names.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences. First sentence states the core purpose, second enumerates the actions. No fluff or redundancy. Every word earns its place given the one-line format.

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 tool with 10 parameters and 5 distinct actions, the description is too minimal. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, action-specific behavior, and integration with other tools. Without an output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context for each action. Incomplete for the complexity level.

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 high (90%), so the schema itself does most of the work describing parameters. The tool description adds no extra semantic value beyond listing action names. Parameter details like date ranges, format constraints, or usage tips are absent. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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?

Clearly states it manages a project memory graph and lists five specific actions (add_entity, add_relation, query, impact, summary). This provides a good sense of the tool's scope. However, the description could be more precise by detailing what each action does, and it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools that may also manage memory (e.g., memento_kg).

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 memento, memento_kg, or memento_remember. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The listing of sub-actions hints at usage, but lacks explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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