Query the memory graph

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses real behavior: entity matching is case-insensitive and matches subject OR object, as_of keeps relations whose validity window covers the instant, results cap at `limit` (default 500), and the response carries "truncated": true when the cap is hit. It also flags results as data rather than instructions, which is useful injection-context. What's missing is whether any filter is required or how results are ordered.

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 identity of the tool, then filter semantics, then the truncation caveat, then the data-vs-instructions note. Every sentence carries distinct information and none repeats structured fields verbatim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't needed and the truncation flag note is a bonus. But for a 7-parameter query tool with zero schema descriptions, leaving three of the primary filters (subject, object, predicate) unexplained means an agent cannot confidently use them without guessing.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does so for only 4 of the 7 parameters (entity, as_of, namespace, limit). The subject, object, and predicate parameters are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, which is a meaningful gap given 0% 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Query the memory graph") and immediately enumerates what the query operates on (entity, as_of, namespace), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not, however, name or differentiate itself from the near siblings memory_search / memory_get / memory_recent, which are the tools an agent is most likely to confuse it with.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance: "Combine filters freely", and explicit next steps when truncated ("raise limit or narrow the filters before treating the answer as complete"). It stops short of saying when to prefer this graph-relation query over memory_search, so the alternative-selection condition is only implicit.

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