memory_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It tells the user the traversal depth (1-2 hops) and optional relation filtering, and the verb 'traverse' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state that it makes no modifications, nor does it mention any permissions or rate limits.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without redundant details.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the primary action but does not describe the return value, error behavior, or the purpose of the 'top' parameter. It is adequate for a simple traversal tool but leaves gaps.

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 describes 'reference' and 'relation' but not 'top' or 'depth'. The description adds meaning to depth ('one or two ontology hops') and relation ('optionally filtered by relation type'), but leaves 'top' unexplained. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.

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 uses the specific verb 'traverse' with a clear resource ('ontology hops around a canonical SecondBrain note') and mentions the optional relation filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_search or memory_get, which are for search/retrieval.

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 for exploring relationships between notes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on scenarios where memory_search or memory_get might be more appropriate.

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