memory_visualize

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It mentions the 'viz' requirement but does not clarify whether the tool only reads memory or if it has any side effects, such as overwriting files or modifying the memory graph. The statement 'Creates a browser-viewable graph' implies file creation but lacks detail on behavior if the extra is missing.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences. The main purpose is stated upfront, and supporting details (what the graph contains, the requirement for the 'viz' extra) are provided without redundancy or unnecessary wording.

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?

The description provides a clear overview of the tool's output (an interactive HTML graph) but lacks details on the exact return value, how to locate the generated file, or any error handling (e.g., behavior if 'viz' is not installed). Given that an output schema is indicated, some of this is mitigated, but the description alone does not fully cover operational context.

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 zero description coverage for both parameters (output_path and include_inactive). The tool description adds no explanation of what these parameters control or their expected values, leaving the agent to infer their semantics from parameter names alone.

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 primary purpose: generating an interactive HTML visualization of the memory graph. It also specifies what the graph includes (memory nodes, relationships, knowledge graph entity triples), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 notes the prerequisite that the 'viz' extra must be installed, which is a useful usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives (e.g., when to choose visualization over memory_search or memory_stats), though the unique purpose is fairly self-evident.

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