discover_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the ANN-based search mechanism and pluggable scoring, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects (likely none), performance characteristics, or what happens with missing/invalid memory_id. The description is honest but not deeply transparent about edge cases or failure modes.

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 sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the technical mechanism (ANN-based search, pluggable scoring) is stated efficiently. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the cross-corpus scope and the scoring mechanism. It could be improved by noting that results are ranked by similarity and that no side effects occur, but the absence of annotations and output schema is partially mitigated by the clear schema descriptions.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds the conceptual context of 'cross-corpus' and 'ANN-based search with pluggable scoring', which helps understand scoring_strategy and exclude_same_namespace. However, it doesn't add specific parameter-level details beyond the schema, so 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's function: finding cross-corpus connections for a memory via semantically similar memories across all namespaces and projects. It uses a specific verb ('find'), names the resource ('memory'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like recall and nearby by emphasizing cross-corpus/namespace scope and ANN-based search.

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 when to use this tool: when you need cross-corpus connections rather than same-namespace recall. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the cross-corpus emphasis and the exclude_same_namespace parameter provide clear context. Sibling names like recall, nearby, and hybrid_recall suggest alternatives, but the description doesn't explicitly route between them.

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