query_memory_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 behavioral transparency. It only says 'Search and inspect,' implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state non-mutating nature, return format, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the primary purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource, and every word 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?

This is a low-complexity tool with only one parameter and no output schema, so minimal description can suffice. However, it does not explain what the agent should expect from the response or any limitations, leaving some contextual gaps for a tool with no output schema and no annotations.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (query) with a descriptive explanation, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, and does not introduce constraints or formatting details.

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 specific verbs 'Search and inspect' and names concrete resources ('historical patch logs, register allocations, and decompilation metadata'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_agent_context or update_agent_memory, so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools perform related memory operations, but the description provides no conditions, exclusions, or preferred scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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