Find memories connected to a topic

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add context beyond those. It does this by explaining the graph-traversal semantics ('connected neighbourhood' vs 'isolated matches'), which is not present in annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, and adds useful behavioral nuance about the nature of results.

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 concise sentences with no filler: the first states the core function, the second gives usage conditions, and the third contrasts with a sibling. Every sentence earns its place, and the key differentiation is front-loaded.

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?

For a read-only graph traversal tool with full schema documentation and an output schema, the description covers usage guidance, the nature of results, and the alternative. There is nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool that is missing.

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 description covers 100% of parameters, including examples, defaults, and rationale (e.g., 'Larger graphs are harder to reason over'). The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Traverse the memory graph to return facts connected to a topic') and clearly differentiates from the sibling memorysync_search by describing the contrasting output ('connected neighbourhood' vs 'ranks independent matches'). This gives an agent a precise understanding of the tool's role.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool ('when a decision depends on several linked facts... or to discover related constraints you did not think to search for') and names the alternative tool (memorysync_search) with a clear contrast. This is exactly the kind of routing guidance an agent needs.

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