get_memory_impact

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and excellently discloses behavior: it lists all return fields and even provides the exact formula for impact_score. It also mentions the requirement for graph capability. No contradictions.

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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and output details, then adding the prerequisite. Every sentence provides essential information with no waste.

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 covers the output comprehensively given there is no output schema, and the single parameter is well-documented. However, it lacks information about error handling (e.g., memory not found, missing graph capability). For a simple tool, this is mostly complete.

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 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'memory_id'. The description adds only the prerequisite context ('Requires storage adapter...') but does not elaborate on the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Thus baseline 3.

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 tool computes the 'graph impact of a memory', specifying the exact metrics returned (entities, relations, cross-namespace flag, impact_score). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get_memory_profile' or 'query_graph'.

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 mentions the prerequisite 'Requires storage adapter with graph capability', but does not provide guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_memory_profile' or 'recall_memories'. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternative naming.

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