memory_graph

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the return shape—nodes with force-directed layout positions and edges with weights—and 'export' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state side effects or confirm no mutation occurs.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and inputs. It is slightly redundant because 'Subgraph export for visualization' and 'Powers memory graph visualization' overlap, but it remains easy to scan and understand.

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 the simple tool shape and full schema coverage, the description covers inputs, output semantics, and intended visualization use. It could be more complete by clarifying the exact relationship between center_id and query, but the schema already provides that detail.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already fully documents all four parameters. The description only echoes the parameter names and constraints without adding deeper semantic detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 identifies this as a 'Subgraph export for visualization' and specifies inputs and outputs, so an agent can understand the basic function. However, it does not differentiate this tool from similarly named siblings like explore_connections or composed_graph.

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 phrase 'Powers memory graph visualization' implies when the tool should be used, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives. There are no direct references to sibling tools or conditions for selection.

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