related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully communicate behavioral traits. It implies a read-only operation (find/returns) but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or safe. It also omits details like authorization requirements, rate limits, or what happens on invalid input. The description is adequate but lacks explicit safety disclosure.

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 three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what it does, what it returns, and when to use alternatives. No extraneous words; every sentence is necessary. It is optimally concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the core function and usage guidance. However, it lacks explanation of the return format (e.g., list of IDs or full memories), the meaning of 'neighboring' or 'shared keys/explicit links', and error handling. While not severely incomplete, there are notable gaps for a fully self-sufficient description.

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, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'by ID' but does not specify the format (e.g., UUID, integer) or how to obtain a valid memory_id. The phrase 'memory you already have' implies prior knowledge but offers no guidance on acquisition. This adds minimal value over the schema.

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 'Finds other memories associated with a memory you already have (by ID).' It specifies the action (find related memories), the resource (memories), and the input (memory ID). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'recall' (which likely retrieves a specific memory) and 'list_memories' (which lists all).

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 guides usage by saying 'For normal agent-driven navigation prefer read_memory(), inspect its returned keys, then call read_key().' This tells the agent when not to use 'related' and suggests alternative tools for standard navigation, providing clear decision-making context.

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