memory_graph

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's addition of traversal depth and entity browsing provides useful context. However, it does not describe failure behavior (e.g., entity not found) or pagination beyond the limit parameter. With annotations carrying the read-only signal, the description adds modest behavioral detail.

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 concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose. No redundant phrases. Slightly more structure could help, but it is efficient.

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 description covers the essential functionality but lacks details about the response format (e.g., how relationships and memories are structured). With no output schema, additional context about return fields would improve completeness. Adequate for basic understanding.

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 100%, so the description adds marginal value beyond schema descriptions. It clarifies the role of entity and entity_type (start traversal vs. browse by type) and restates depth range. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 queries the knowledge graph to find entities, relationships, and linked memories. It specifies starting with an entity name or browsing by type, and supports multi-hop traversal. This sets it apart from sibling tools that focus on CRUD or other specific operations.

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 implies usage for graph traversal queries but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory_search or memory_get. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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