search_by_relationship

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 states the tool searches based on relationship patterns, but doesn't describe what 'memories' are, the format of results, whether it's read-only or has side effects, error conditions, or performance characteristics. For a search tool with zero 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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to understanding the core functionality. No waste or redundancy is present.

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 complexity of searching relationship patterns, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'memories' entail, the result format, or how relationship patterns are defined beyond the schema's parameter hint. For a tool with one parameter but significant conceptual depth, more context is needed to fully understand its 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'pattern' parameter fully documented in the schema ('Pattern in format "source relationship target" (use * for wildcards)'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it only mentions 'relationship patterns' without detailing the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Search for memories') and the resource type ('memories'), specifying it's based on 'relationship patterns'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_memory_content' (which searches content) and 'find_related_memories' (which finds related memories without pattern specification). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings like 'find_memories_within_degrees' or 'find_memory_path', leaving some ambiguity.

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 scenarios where this tool is preferred over siblings like 'find_related_memories' or 'search_memory_content', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the name and description but not explicitly stated.

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