memory_graph

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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add read-specific context — and it does: transitive/inverse edges arrive pre-derived, are flagged `derived: true`, and carry rule provenance. That is real behavioral detail an agent cannot get from annotations, though pagination/size limits are unmentioned.

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?

Tight and front-loaded: purpose first, then the derived-edge behavior, then the return keys. The trailing return-shape sentence partially duplicates the output schema, but it is short enough not to be wasteful.

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 a 5-parameter schema at full coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the one thing structured data cannot — how edges are derived and flagged. It is nearly complete; a note on result size or the shortest-path behavior would close the remaining gap.

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 depth, to, include_facts, and relation_filter are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline 3.

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 ('Read an entity's graph neighborhood') and enumerates what it returns (nodes, typed edges, canonical facts). It clearly reads as the graph-traversal counterpart to memory_get/memory_search, but it never names or distinguishes itself from those siblings explicitly.

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 scope ('an entity's graph neighborhood') implies when you'd reach for it, and the mention of a `to`-style shortest path is only in the schema. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus memory_get, memory_recall, or memory_graph_review.

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