memory.pr.linked_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, what happens if the PR ID is invalid, or any rate-limiting considerations. The description only states the basic action, leaving the agent unaware of key behavioral traits. Since there are no annotations to contradict, no contradiction flag is raised.

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 a single concise sentence of 4 words, which is efficient. It front-loads the action ('Lista') and the resource. However, it could have included a brief usage note without significant bloat. The structure is appropriate for the simplicity of the tool.

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 tool has one parameter, no annotations, but an output schema (not shown), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, pagination, or what qualifies as 'linked' (e.g., direct links or any transitive relationship). The agent lacks context about edge cases like empty results or error handling. A more complete description would clarify these aspects for reliable invocation.

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 compensate but does not. The parameter 'pr_memory_id' is not explained in the description—its meaning is only hinted by the tool name and description context (linking to a PR). However, with only one parameter and a clear name, the agent can infer its purpose. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, earning a baseline score of 3 given the low 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 'Lista MemoryItems linkados a um PR' (Lists MemoryItems linked to a PR) clearly states the verb (list) and resource (MemoryItems linked to a PR). However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like 'memory.linked_prs' which lists PRs linked to a memory, or 'memory.pr.link_memory' which links a memory to a PR. The purpose is understandable but lacks sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as 'memory.pr.query' for querying PRs, or 'memory.linked_prs' for the inverse relationship. There is no context about prerequisites (e.g., the PR must exist) or exclusions. The one-sentence description implies usage solely by mentioning the PR context, but this is insufficient for an agent deciding among many sibling tools.

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