Reason across stored memories to answer questions, claims, or topics. Set depth to control how many memories are analyzed for connecting related information.
Alias for deep_reference. Connect the dots across memories with cognitive reasoning.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | How many memories to analyze (default: 20, max: 50). Higher = more thorough. | |
| query | Yes | The question, claim, or topic to reason about across all memories |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.6.0v2.3.0v2.1.27Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'cognitive reasoning' and 'across memories,' which is too vague to indicate whether the operation is read-only, how much processing it performs, what the output looks like, or whether it has side effects.
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 short and front-loads the alias information, which is efficient. However, 'connect the dots across memories with cognitive reasoning' is vague and does not earn its place by adding concrete detail; it is more a slogan than a specification.
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 tool with two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves significant gaps: it does not explain what the output is, how depth changes results, when to prefer this over alternatives, or what guarantees or limitations apply. The alias is suggestive but not sufficient.
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 both query and depth are already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters affect behavior beyond the schema's own descriptions.
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 states that the tool connects dots across memories with cognitive reasoning, which conveys a general cross-referencing purpose. However, 'connect the dots' is metaphorical and vague, and the tool is only defined as an alias for the sibling deep_reference without clarifying what that operation actually produces.
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?
No explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like search, explore_connections, or deep_reference. The 'alias for deep_reference' clue is helpful, but it does not explain use cases, exclusions, or how this differs from other memory-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.