get_linked_memories

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It doesn't specify whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions might be required, whether results are paginated, or what format the returned memories will have. The description only states what the tool does at a high level without operational details.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant information.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'memory' in this system, what 'linked' means operationally, what relationship types might be available, or what format the results will take. The agent would need to guess about many aspects of tool behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides - it mentions 'source memory' and 'relationship type' but doesn't explain these concepts further or provide usage examples.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('memories linked from a source memory'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'find_related_memories' or 'search_by_relationship', which appear to have overlapping functionality in the memory domain.

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 multiple sibling tools dealing with memory relationships (e.g., 'find_related_memories', 'search_by_relationship', 'find_memory_path'), the agent receives no help in selecting the appropriate tool for different scenarios.

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