get_related

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'spreading activation' but does not explain what that entails (e.g., return format, behavior on invalid memory_id, or whether it modifies state). Minimal beyond basic purpose.

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?

Two short sentences, efficient and front-loaded. The second sentence could be merged, but the overall length is appropriate.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of IDs or full memories), how 'top_k' affects results, or error handling for missing memory_id.

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%. The description only references 'memory_id' without specifying its format or purpose, and completely ignores 'top_k'. The agent receives no added meaning beyond the schema field names.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'find semantically related memories' given a memory ID. It implies a specific operation different from listing or searching all memories. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_memory' or 'list_memories'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_memory' or 'list_memories'. Lacks context for when spreading activation is appropriate or what prerequisites exist (e.g., required memory format).

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