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 traversal modes and provides examples, but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, error behavior for missing node_id, or any side effects. It's adequate for a simple listing operation but lacks explicit safety or precondition details.

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 that are front-loaded with the core intent and immediately give directional semantics. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It explains the core directional logic but omits details like node_id requirements (though the schema's top-level description covers that), how to use github_repo/owner/number, and what happens if node_id is null. It's adequate for a simple read operation but leaves ambiguity for edge cases.

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 only 17%, so the tool description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds meaning for 'direction' with detailed explanations, but leaves node_id, worktree, and github_* parameters unexplained in the description itself (though worktree has a schema description). This is partial compensation, not sufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 it lists a node's typed edges, with explicit differentiation between outgoing (from) and incoming/reverse (into) directions. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like memory_for_symbol or memory_edge_add, so an agent can immediately identify its purpose.

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 concrete examples for each direction ('deps / links / tracks' for from, 'tasks that track an issue' for into), which helps the agent know when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or contrast with alternatives like memory_edge_add/remove, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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