memory_relations_tool

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' weakly implies a read-only operation, but the description says nothing about relation direction (incoming vs outgoing), whether the project scope changes results, result volume/pagination, or permissions required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficiently structured, though its brevity is achieved partly by omitting necessary detail rather than by tight editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described. However, for a two-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no usage routing, the description leaves the agent without enough context to call it correctly in ambiguous 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 0% and there are two parameters. The description's phrase 'involving a memory' loosely hints at the required 'id', but the optional 'project' parameter is never mentioned in the schema or the description, so an agent has no basis for using it.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('typed relations'), and a scope ('involving a memory'), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It stops short of naming or contrasting with the sibling memory_relate_tool, which would have made the purpose differentiation explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as memory_relate_tool (which presumably creates relations) or memory_get_tool (which likely returns the memory itself). Usage is only implied by the word 'List', with no exclusions or conditions stated.

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