memory_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: transitive/inverse edges arrive pre-derived and are flagged derived:true with rule provenance. It does not explain the non-idempotent hint or cost/limits, but the derived-edge semantics are genuinely useful.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the derived-edge caveat. The explicit 'Returns:' line is somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief rather than padded.

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 read-only traversal tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient: it states scope, the pre-derived edge semantics, and the return keys. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing, though a note on traversal cost or depth limits would round it out.

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 entity, depth, to, include_facts, and relation_filter. The description adds no extra parameter semantics (e.g., depth interaction with relation_filter or path folding behavior beyond what the schema states), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Read an entity's graph neighborhood: nodes, typed edges, and each node's canonical facts.' This is clearly distinct from the graph mutators (memory_graph_relate/unrelate) and review tools, but the description never names a sibling to route against, so it stops short of explicit differentiation.

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?

Usage is implied by 'read an entity's graph neighborhood', so an agent can infer it is the traversal/expansion tool. However, with ~40 siblings including memory_search, memory_recall, and memory_fact_get, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-that guidance or exclusion criteria.

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