memory_graph

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates a read operation (non-destructive), but fails to mention any state changes, limits, or side effects. The description is too brief to provide adequate transparency.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, but lacks supporting information.

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?

Given the complexity of memory tools among many siblings and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the memory graph represents, how it relates to other memory tools, or provide sufficient context for correct usage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'filtered subgraph' which hints at the 'focus' parameter, but does not clarify the meaning of 'depth' or how focus works. The description adds minimal value over the schema.

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 clearly states the tool reads the memory graph, with verb 'Read' and resource 'memory graph'. It also mentions filtering to a subgraph, which adds specificity. However, it does not differentiate from sibling memory tools like memory_query or memory_search, which also read memory data.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool compared to other memory tools (e.g., memory_search, memory_query). The description does not provide context, exclusions, or alternative tool names.

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