memory_relations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the behavior: returns triples, optional filters by direction and relation type. It also notes that there's no separate creation tool. However, it does not mention rate limits, authentication needs, or any side effects, but for a read query this is acceptable.

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 bold for key terms. Every sentence adds value: first states the core function, second gives usage examples and creation alternative. No wasted words.

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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context to use it correctly. It covers the main use case, filters, and how to create relations. Missing details like return format beyond 'triples' or pagination, but it's still complete enough for typical use.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the 'destination' parameter as an optional legacy override that should not be combined with search_scope, and by summarizing the filter options. This goes beyond repeating schema definitions.

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 'Query typed edges between entities' and distinguishes itself from semantic search and from the creation tool memory_store. It provides concrete use cases like 'what does X own / use / depend on?', making its purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly tells when to use this tool ('for 'what does X own / use / depend on?' and 'who owns Y?' style questions') and when not to ('To create relations, use memory_store...'). This leaves no ambiguity about alternatives.

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