get_related_memories

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns related memories and relationship info, implying a read operation, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication needs, or performance characteristics. Minimal disclosure beyond the basic action.

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 sentences, each adding distinct value: first states the core function, second adds detail and use case. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, return value, and a use case. However, it could include more context about graph traversal behavior or prerequisites, but not critically 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description adds general context about relationship information but does not provide additional detail or examples for parameter usage 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?

Description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'memories related to a given memory', and mentions returning relationship information. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_memories or recall by focusing on graph exploration, as noted in 'explore the knowledge graph around a specific concept'.

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 includes a usage hint: 'Use this to explore the knowledge graph around a specific concept.' This provides context but does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving room for improvement.

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