memory_links

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the behavior of showing relationships but does not provide additional context such as the default exclusion of archived memories or pagination behavior, which are useful but not disclosed in the description.

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 states the action and resource without extraneous words. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 is a read-only relationship viewer with an output schema and strong annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it omits important behavioral context like the default archive exclusion and the availability of filters, which the agent must discover from the schema. This makes the description somewhat incomplete for a standalone tool summary.

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 description names the entity types (ticket, file, agent, tag) that map to filter parameters, but it does not explain parameter roles, mention the include_archive flag, or describe the limit default. With 0% schema description coverage (the description itself does not describe any parameters), the description fails to compensate, though the input schema provides detailed descriptions for each parameter.

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 'Show' and clearly identifies the resource: relationships across memory entries involving tickets, files, agents, and tags. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like memory_read or memory_search, which focus on content retrieval rather than relationship mapping.

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 should be used when needing to understand interconnections between tickets, files, agents, and tags, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like memory_search or memory_read, nor does it mention exclusions or typical use cases.

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