SQLite Project Memory MCP

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 mentions 'traverse outward relationship dependencies,' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's safe, what permissions are needed, or how it handles limits like 'max_depth' or 'edge_limit.' For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in describing its behavior and constraints.

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, efficient sentence: 'Traverse outward relationship dependencies from an entity.' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for that in the description. However, for a tool that traverses relationships with multiple configurable limits, the description lacks details on behavior, error handling, or output format, leaving gaps in context.

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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what 'entity_id' refers to, how 'max_depth' affects traversal, what 'relationship_type' entails, or the purpose of 'compact.' With low coverage and no compensation in the description, the parameters remain largely unexplained.

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's purpose: 'Traverse outward relationship dependencies from an entity.' It specifies the verb ('traverse') and resource ('relationship dependencies from an entity'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_dependency_view' or 'list_relationships', which might offer similar functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_dependency_view' or 'list_relationships', nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions. This lack of usage guidance makes it harder for an AI agent to select the correct tool among similar options.

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