association_report

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool summarizes the network and lists the specific metrics computed, including 'spreading activation', which provides useful context. It does not explicitly note side effects, but 'Summarize' strongly implies a read-only report.

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-organized sentence that front-loads the core purpose and enumerates the report's contents. Every word contributes value, with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema), and the description covers the main functionality and output metrics. However, it omits any explanation of the 'limit' parameter, and the lack of an output schema means the description should have more detail about the exact response structure or how metrics are formatted. This leaves a moderate gap.

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 schema has one parameter ('limit') with 0% coverage in the description. The description does not explain what the limit applies to (presumably the number of most-connected memories), leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 specifies a verb ('Summarize') and a resource ('memory association network'), and enumerates concrete output content (total links, connected/isolated memories, average links, most-connected memories). This distinguishes it from other report tools like similarity_report or interference_report by focusing on the association network.

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 that this tool is appropriate when an overview of the memory association network is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. With many sibling reporting tools, more explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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