related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as producing a 'quick overview' of connections but does not disclose behavioral details such as whether it is read-only, performance characteristics, or limitations. The description minimally implies behavior but lacks comprehensive 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 two sentences with a clear usage guideline. It is front-loaded with the main action and uses no unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the tool has three undocumented parameters and the description does not explain how to invoke them correctly. The description lacks completeness for effective use, especially since it positions itself as a simpler alternative to graph_query but does not describe how to use its parameters.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description does not explain any of the three parameters (memory_id, entity_name, depth) beyond their names. The description says 'related to a given memory or entity' but does not specify which parameter to use, their mutual exclusivity, or the meaning of depth. This is a significant gap.

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 'Find memories and entities related to a given memory or entity.' It distinguishes from the sibling tool graph_query by noting it's a simpler interface for common lookups, and the 'USE THIS WHEN' section reinforces its purpose.

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?

Explicitly states 'USE THIS WHEN: you want a quick overview... without needing the full graph_query options.' This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative graph_query, which is named directly.

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