memora

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the file output behavior (including default path) and return value structure, but fails to mention critical behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing files, performance limits, or the meaning/scale of the 'similarity score' (e.g., 0-1 range).

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 uses a structured docstring format (Args/Returns) that efficiently organizes information with minimal waste. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the subsequent sections logically group technical details.

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?

For a 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides adequate coverage by explaining both parameters (critical given schema gaps) and summarizing the return dictionary contents. It appropriately omits exhaustive return value details that would be in the output schema.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage (titles only), the description effectively compensates by documenting both parameters: 'output_path' as the HTML save location and 'min_score' as the edge similarity threshold. It includes default values, though it could further clarify the valid range for the score parameter.

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 specific action (export), resource (memories), and unique format (interactive HTML knowledge graph), which distinguishes it from the generic 'memory_export' sibling. However, it doesn't explicitly clarify when to choose this over other visualization siblings like 'memory_clusters' or 'memory_hierarchy'.

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 like 'memory_export' (likely for raw data) or other visualization tools. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or scenario-based recommendations provided.

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