find_memories_within_degrees

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it describes the search behavior, it lacks critical information about what 'degrees of separation' means operationally, whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics, or what format the results take. For a graph traversal tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core functionality without wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and gets straight to the point with clear subject-verb-object structure.

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?

For a graph traversal tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'degree' in this memory graph, what relationships are traversed, what the output format looks like, or performance considerations. The description should provide more operational context given the complexity of the domain.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond what the schema provides - it mentions 'N degrees' which corresponds to 'max_degrees' and 'starting memory' which corresponds to 'start_key', but doesn't provide additional context about parameter interactions or search semantics.

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 action ('Find all memories') and scope ('within N degrees of separation from a starting memory'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'find_related_memories' or 'get_linked_memories', which likely have overlapping functionality in a memory graph context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'find_related_memories', 'get_linked_memories', and 'search_by_relationship', there's clear potential for overlap, but the description offers no context about when this specific degree-based search is appropriate versus other relationship-finding tools.

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