find_related_memories

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search mechanisms (content, tags, links) but doesn't describe what 'related' means operationally, how results are ordered, whether it's a read-only operation, or any performance considerations like rate limits. For a tool with 6 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part ('Find memories related to a given memory through content, tags, or links') contributes directly to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 tool's complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'related' entails, how similarity is calculated, the format of results, or error conditions. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should provide more behavioral and operational context to be complete for effective agent use.

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 the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it implies parameters for content, tags, and links but doesn't explain their interactions or provide additional context. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate for any gaps.

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's purpose: 'Find memories related to a given memory through content, tags, or links.' It specifies the verb ('find'), resource ('memories'), and mechanism ('through content, tags, or links'), which distinguishes it from generic search tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'find_memories_within_degrees' or 'get_linked_memories', which likely have overlapping functionality.

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. It doesn't mention when this tool is appropriate compared to siblings like 'find_memories_within_degrees', 'get_linked_memories', or 'search_by_relationship', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name and parameters alone.

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