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 listing graph edges with optional constraints, but fails to describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires permissions, how results are paginated or limited, or what the output format entails. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('List graph edges') and adds optional details concisely. There's no wasted wording, and it's structured to convey essential information without fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. The output schema likely covers return values, reducing the need for output details in the description. However, it lacks behavioral context and full parameter semantics, making it incomplete for safe and effective use without additional inference or documentation.

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 for undocumented parameters. It only vaguely references 'entity and direction' constraints, covering at most 2 of the 4 parameters (entity_id and direction), but doesn't explain 'relationship_type' or 'limit'. This partial coverage leaves key parameters like 'limit' unexplained, failing to add sufficient meaning beyond the bare 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 verb ('List') and resource ('graph edges'), making the purpose understandable. It specifies the optional constraint ('to an entity and direction'), which adds clarity. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_entity_graph' or 'connect_entities', which might also involve graph relationships, 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 mentions optional constraints but doesn't specify scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools like 'get_entity_graph' or 'list_entities', there's no indication of how this tool fits into the broader context, leaving usage unclear.

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