memory_edges

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the two directions and mentions that direction=from requires node_id (though schema marks it optional). However, it omits return format or edge types, and there's no output schema to compensate.

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 concise, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no extraneous words. Two sentences effectively communicate the core functionality.

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 five parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It does not describe the return format, edge types, or clarify the optional parameters. The schema's description adds context, but the tool description lacks details for a complete understanding.

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 explains direction and node_id partially. The schema's own description (available to the agent) covers the github ref alternative, but github_repo, github_owner, github_number remain unexplained in the tool description. Baseline 3 due to schema coverage.

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 lists a node's typed edges, differentiating between outgoing (from) and incoming (into) directions. It uses specific verbs and resource, contrasting with sibling tools like memory_edge_add or memory_show.

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 provides context on how to use the two directions with examples (e.g., tasks that track an issue), but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool over alternatives like memory_edge_add or memory_search. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are mentioned.

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