related

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals the connection logic ('shared keys OR explicit links (both directions)') and that results are returned. It does not mention error cases or edge behaviors, but for a simple query tool this is adequate transparency, though not exhaustive, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediately followed by usage context. Every sentence contributes value: the first defines the operation, the second explains the connection criteria and provides a usage workflow. No redundant wording.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no annotations, and an output schema that describes return values), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, how to use it, and what to expect in terms of results. No critical missing information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 schema has one parameter (memory_id) with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by referencing 'a specific memory' and the pattern 'pick ID', which clearly indicates the parameter identifies the starting memory. This adds semantic context beyond the raw schema field title, though it could be more explicit about the parameter name.

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: 'Explore connections from a specific memory.' This is a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from siblings like recall (which retrieves a single memory) and list_memories (which lists all memories). The mention of returning connected memories by shared keys or explicit links further differentiates its role.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use after recall() to drill down: recall → pick ID → related → pick ID → related → ...' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool (after recall) and how to chain it, effectively distinguishing it from alternatives.

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