mempalace_kg_query

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context about tenant-scoping and temporal validity, which is not present in the annotations. However, it does not disclose any additional behavioral nuances, such as result limits or handling of missing timestamps, so the description contributes modest extra value beyond annotations.

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-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and packs in all key qualifiers (tenant-scoped, temporal, optional time/direction). No filler or redundant phrases; every word earns its place.

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 query tool with three well-documented parameters, output schema, and safety annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It captures the essential scope and optionality. The lack of explicit alternative guidance is a minor gap, but not critical for understanding what the tool does; the output schema covers return value expectations.

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 input schema provides full descriptions for all three parameters, with 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'optional point in time and direction' aligns with the schema but does not add any extra meaning beyond what the parameter descriptions already state. Thus, the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds no distinct value for parameter understanding.

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's function: querying tenant-scoped temporal knowledge-graph facts for an entity, with optional time and direction parameters. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the temporal/tenant-scoped aspect distinguishes it from other KG tools like add/invalidate. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar query tools such as mempalace_kg_check or mempalace_traverse.

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 the tool is used when needing temporal facts about an entity, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. With a large set of sibling tools (e.g., mempalace_kg_timeline, mempalace_traverse, mempalace_search), the lack of contrast leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and semantic description.

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