mcp_engram_search_by_relation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by revealing that results include 'RoMem semantic-speed-gate α per edge' and are 'ranked by prefer_static (default true: static edges first),' which explains ordering and output content. It also warns about potentially large outputs on high-relation hubs. It stops short of stating read-only status or full result structure, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. The all-caps scoping warning is a concise, actionable addition that improves usability without verbose explanation.

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 lack of an output schema, the description partially explains return content by mentioning α per edge and ranking behavior. The scoping warning addresses a real edge case. It could be more complete by explicitly stating traversal depth or full result fields, but the description covers the essential selection and invocation details for a relation search tool with well-documented parameters.

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 the descriptive baseline is 3. The description mostly repeats what the schema already states: filtering by label/direction, k for scoping, and prefer_static ranking. It adds no significant parameter semantics beyond the schema, though the scoping warning reinforces k's purpose.

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 the tool as a knowledge graph traversal operation: 'Traverse the knowledge graph. Find concepts related to a seed, filtered by optional label and direction.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling recall/query tools, which focus on content retrieval rather than relation-based graph traversal.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('Find concepts related to a seed') and adds practical guidance with 'IMPORTANT FOR SCOPING: use label, direction, and k to keep results small on high-relation hubs.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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