memory_walk

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

With no annotations, the description must communicate side effects and operational behavior. It only says 'walk' and specifies direction, leaving unclear whether the operation is strictly read-only, how cycles are handled, or what the traversal returns. The depth limit (max 6) appears in the schema but is not described in prose, so the agent lacks a full behavioral picture.

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 two concise sentences with no wasted words; the core action is stated first, and the direction parameter clarification is brief and useful. It does not duplicate schema content.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what a walk yields and any constraints. It omits the meaning/effect of depth, the return format (nodes, edges, paths?), and handling of cycles or graph loops. The note about direction is helpful but insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool without further inference.

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 description adds meaningful semantic value for the direction parameter by stating the default ('out') and possible values. The 'from' parameter is already documented in the schema as 'The id to start from,' and the description reinforces it as 'from a node.' However, the depth parameter is not explained beyond its numeric bounds, which is especially notable given only 33% schema 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 clearly states the action ('Walk the memory graph from a node along its links'), which is specific and distinct from sibling memory tools like memory_recall or memory_store. It also highlights the direction parameter and default, reinforcing its graph-traversal purpose. The parenthetical 'connected context around a decision' gives a concrete use case, though it is somewhat informal.

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 phrase 'connected context around a decision' implies the tool should be used when one needs to explore relationships from a specific memory node. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., use memory_recall for semantic search) or exclusion conditions. It provides a clear context but no comparative guidance.

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