get_related

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

With no annotations, the description correctly communicates that this is a read-like retrieval operation returning two relationship directions. However, it does not disclose potential limits, ordering, pagination, or error behavior, which would be useful given the absence of annotations and output schema.

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 short sentences with no redundant phrasing. The when-to-use trigger is front-loaded, and the return semantics are stated directly afterward.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool, the description explains when to call it and what the result contains. It still leaves some details about result format and relationship depth to inference, but it is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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% and the only parameter, memory_id, is already documented as 'Memory ID.' The description adds no new meaning to the parameter beyond identifying it as the anchor memory, so the baseline score applies.

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 names a specific operation and resource: retrieve context connected to a particular memory. It also specifies the exact output shape (referenced and referencing memories), which makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like search_memory or list_gaps.

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?

It gives a clear invocation condition ('Call when you need context connected to a particular memory'). It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the condition is specific enough for an agent to select it.

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