memory_entity

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that relations are always returned, capped at 50 each direction, and that name matching is case-insensitive. This adds useful context beyond the schema, though it does not explicitly state read-only nature or performance characteristics.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with primary purpose, then usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value with no fluff.

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 no output schema and 6 parameters, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (facts and typed relations), usage guidelines, and parameter behavior. It could mention the return structure but is sufficient for entity lookup.

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 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the name parameter is case-insensitive with an example, and clarifies that destination is a legacy override not to combine with search_scope. These additions justify a 4.

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 retrieves all known facts and relations about an entity, and explicitly distinguishes it from memory_recall by specifying entity-centric queries. It names the alternative and gives preference rules.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use: 'Prefer this over memory_recall when the user asks tell me about X or what do we know about X and X is a known entity name.' Also provides when not to use: 'If you only have a fuzzy description, use memory_recall first.'

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