Search typed memory links

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It indicates a read-only operation by stating 'searches' and describes the data source. However, it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, mention permissions, or describe behavior on empty results. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 sentences, each efficient: purpose, usage context, sibling differentiation. No redundant or excessive information. Front-loaded with key action.

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 2 parameters and no output schema, the description explains data source, typical connections, and when to use. However, it does not describe the return format, pagination, or error handling. Lacks some completeness for a search tool.

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 50% (query has a minimal description, max_results has none). The description adds context for the query parameter by explaining the types of links, but does not address max_results format or constraints. Partially compensates for low coverage.

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 searches graph-style links from memory facts and conversation turns, specifies the types of connections (people, jobs, PRs, etc.), and distinguishes it from search_memory by noting it's for relationship lookups.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Use this when a worker needs to find connections...' and 'Prefer search_memory for broad recall and search_typed_links for relationship lookups.' Clearly states when to use and how it differs from the sibling tool search_memory.

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