memory_related

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the two strategies (graph edges and cosine similarity) and read-only behavior. However, it does not mention potential performance characteristics, deduplication, or result format, which are minor gaps.

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?

Two well-structured sentences: first describes purpose and mechanism, second provides usage guidance with alternatives. No redundant information; every sentence earns 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?

While the tool is a read-only query and the description covers purpose and alternatives, it lacks mention of output format or any response details. Since no output schema is provided, the description should hint at return structure (e.g., list of memories with similarity scores). This gap reduces completeness.

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 good descriptions. The description adds context by explaining the two strategies behind includeGraph and includeSemantic, helping the agent understand how parameters affect behavior. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 it 'Find memories related to a given memory using knowledge graph traversal and/or semantic similarity', specifying the resource and operation. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming alternatives (graph_explore, memory_search).

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool vs alternatives with the sentence 'Use graph_explore for pure graph traversal with depth control; use memory_search for text-based search.' Also declares read-only nature.

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