memory_related

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

No annotations provided, but description details eventual consistency: that B.related is not re-cascaded, and when refresh is needed. Covers the core behavioral nuance without omissions.

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?

Well-structured: opening summary then detailed consistency model. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy.

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?

Covers consistency model thoroughly, but does not mention what the output contains (e.g., list of related memories). Since output schema exists, this is a minor gap.

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 0%; description explains refresh parameter in detail (consistency path), but memory_id parameter is not described beyond its implicit meaning. Basic parameter added value partially compensated.

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?

First sentence clearly states the tool returns cross-referenced memories for a given entry. Distinct from siblings like memory_get (which returns the memory itself) and memory_rebuild_crossrefs (full rebuild).

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?

Explains when to use refresh=False (eventual consistency) vs refresh=True (strong consistency), and directs to memory_rebuild_crossrefs for full rebuild. Does not explicitly exclude other search tools, but context is sufficient.

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