memory_relations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: the starting memory is excluded from results, maxHops defaults to 2 and is capped at 5, at most 500 memories are visited, and returned memories 'record retention access' (a side effect of reading). These are substantive behavioral traits beyond anything in the schema.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then return shape, then traversal limits, then the sibling alternative. Four tight sentences with no filler; every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description fully compensates: it specifies the return fields (memory, hop, confidence), the exclusion rule, the traversal caps, and the retention-access side effect. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 schema already documents all three parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description reinforces maxHops' default and adds the cap of 5 (not in the schema), but adds nothing for memoryId or minConfidence beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Follow stored memory-to-memory relations, related IDs, supersession and parent links from memoryId'), naming exactly which link types are traversed. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling memory_graph_query, so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Provides an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: 'Use memory_graph_query for the separate entity/concept graph rather than memory relationships.' This is a clear when-not/alternative rule, not merely implied usage.

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