related

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns neighboring memories but lacks details on pagination, result limits, performance implications, or whether it is purely read-only. The behavior is minimally described without contradiction.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that cover purpose, output, and usage guidance without any superfluous text. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), the description is somewhat complete but lacks parameter documentation and behavioral specifics like pagination or the nature of links. It is minimally adequate for a simple tool but could be improved.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not add any meaning to the memory_id parameter beyond implying it is a known ID. No format, example, or constraints are provided, leaving the agent to guess.

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's function: exploring compatibility from a known memory ID and returning neighboring memories connected by shared keys or explicit links. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly recommending alternative navigation paths (read_memory and read_key) for normal agent-driven tasks.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: for normal navigation, prefer read_memory and read_key instead. This helps the agent decide between related and its siblings.

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