related_to

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the ranking approach (graph proximity + BM25) and optional blending, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has rate limits. The description adds some context but lacks full behavioral disclosure.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource. It efficiently communicates the key functionality without superfluous words, earning its place.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description covers the main purpose and ranking method but omits details like return format, pagination, error handling, or limits. It is adequate but leaves gaps that could affect agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The tool description adds value by explaining how parameters interact, e.g., that the query parameter defaults to source memory content if omitted, and that context is blended as a 'lightweight BM25 boost'. This goes beyond the schema's standalone descriptions.

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 memories related to' and the resource 'a given memory ID'. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'search_memories' and 'retrieve_memory' by specifying the ranking mechanism (graph proximity + BM25) and optional blending, making the purpose specific and unique.

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 implies usage when a memory ID is available and related memories are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_memories' or 'traverse_from'. There is no guidance on exclusions, prerequisites, or context-specific scenarios.

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