memory_graph

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

With no annotations provided, the description properly indicates the tool is non-destructive (export for visualization) and describes output format, though it could explicitly state read-only safety and any 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?

Two sentences cover purpose, inputs, and outputs with zero wasted words. Essential information is front-loaded.

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 4 params fully described in schema and no output schema, the description explains the output structure (nodes with positions, edges with weights), providing sufficient completeness for a visualization export tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description repeats schema info (depth, max_nodes, center_id/query) without adding new semantic details beyond what the schema already 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 states 'Subgraph export for visualization' and specifies inputs (center_id/query, depth, max_nodes) and outputs (nodes with positions, edges with weights), fully distinguishing it from siblings like explore_connections.

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?

While the description implies usage for visualization and lists inputs, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool vs alternatives like explore_connections or composed_graph, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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