memory_graph_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does usefully disclose that traversal is deterministic and returns Merkle traversal receipts, which tells the agent results are auditable and reproducible. It says nothing about graph size/cost, whether seeds must exist, or failure behavior when a seed is unknown.

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?

Three short lines with the action front-loaded and no filler. 'Implements associative recall (HippoRAG 2)' is a citation that consumes space without helping an agent decide or call correctly.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, but for a three-parameter graph traversal with zero schema documentation and zero annotations, the description should define seed format, hop semantics, and superseded handling. Those gaps are the ones most likely to cause a wrong call.

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 0% across all three parameters. The description only indirectly hints that 'seeds' are memory IDs (via 'reachable memory IDs'); max_hops and include_superseded are never explained, and the concept of a 'superseded' memory is left undefined.

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?

States a specific verb ('Traverse') and resource ('deterministic entity-relationship memory graph'), plus what it returns. It is distinguishable from sibling memory tools by its graph-traversal nature, though it never names memory_recall or recall_relevant as the flat/vector alternatives.

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?

No statement of when to reach for graph traversal versus memory_recall, recall_relevant, prefetch_related, or shared_memory_search, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer the use case from the phrase 'associative recall' alone.

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