hicortex_graph

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of implying side effects. The verbs 'Query' and 'explore' strongly indicate a read-only operation, and the listed operations (neighbors, hubs, path) are inherently non-mutating. It does not cover auth, limits, or output behavior, but it does enough to indicate the tool is safe to use for exploration.

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 crisp sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the usage guidance is actionable. Every phrase 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 exhaustive schema, the description covers all three operations and their intended use cases. It does not describe output structure, but the tool has no output schema and the operation names make the return shape reasonably inferable. Slightly more explicit output guidance would make it fully complete.

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 already provides 100% parameter descriptions, including per-operation requirements and relationship examples, so the description does not need to re-explain parameters. The description adds conceptual linkage (e.g., 'connected to one you just fetched' implies id for neighbors; 'hub memories in a domain' implies the domain filter), but it does not materially improve on the schema's coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Query the memory knowledge graph') and names the three distinct operations: neighbors, hubs, and paths. It differentiates the tool from siblings like hicortex_search and hicortex_get by focusing on graph relationships rather than flat retrieval.

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?

It gives concrete usage context: explore memories connected to a fetched one or find hub memories in a domain. It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or enumerate sibling alternatives, so it misses the 'when-not' guidance, but the intended use cases are clear.

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