memory.related

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the meaningful trait that results derive from explicit links only, not similarity. It is silent on return shape, ordering, and pagination behavior despite a limit parameter existing.

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 efficient sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It errs toward terseness rather than padding, so conciseness itself is good.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description should do more. It omits return format, ordering, and what 'related' means operationally, leaving real gaps for an agent invoking it.

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 0% for 2 parameters. The description implies the 'given pattern' input (patternId) but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter or its bounds (1-20, default 10). One of two parameters is left entirely unexplained by either schema or description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('patterns related to a given pattern'), and the parenthetical '(by explicit links)' scopes the operation to link traversal rather than semantic matching. This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like memory.recall, though it does not name them directly.

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?

Usage context is implied: the '(by explicit links)' qualifier tells the agent results come only from links previously created (e.g., via memory.link), suggesting when this is preferable to a semantic search. However, no when-to-use condition or named alternative (memory.recall, memory.link) is given explicitly.

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