memory_find_related

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the BFS traversal and relationship-agnostic behavior, but does not mention side effects, return format, or limits like cycle handling or max_hops semantics. The read-only nature is implied by 'Find' but not elaborated.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no fluff. The second sentence adds detail about relationship-agnostic traversal, though it partially repeats 'find concepts.' Still efficient.

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?

The tool is a graph traversal with no output schema or annotations. The description explains the purpose and scope but omits what the return value looks like (e.g., list of concept IDs), whether max_hops is inclusive, or how cycles are handled. Adequate for a simple read tool, but with gaps.

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 coverage is 100% (both parameters described), so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details; it only clarifies the overall operation. No further compensation needed.

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 conceptually related concepts via graph traversal (BFS), specifying the method and the resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like memory_get_concept (single concept) and memory_find_solutions (solution-oriented search).

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 gives clear context: use when you need concepts connected by any relationship type. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the traversal-based method is specific enough to imply appropriate use cases.

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