related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the matching logic (shared tags, project, co-occurrence) and mentions the 'graph spreading-activation' pattern, which adds useful context. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe response formatting, leaving some behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences convey the main purpose and usage guidance. The additional mention of 'Mnema pattern' is brief and does not bloat the content.

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 and no output schema, the description gives essential context: purpose, mechanism, and usage timing. It does not describe return value structure explicitly, but the description implies a list of memories, which is sufficient for a simple retrieval 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 the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already provides; the 'id' parameter is implied as the 'given memory' but the schema already describes it as the capture ID.

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 a specific action and resource: 'Find memories connected to a given memory' with the mechanism (shared tags, project, or co-occurrence). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by positioning it as a follow-up to recall or search, making the tool's unique purpose evident.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this after recall or search to discover related context you might have missed.' This provides a clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the given guidance effectively differentiates it from sibling tools.

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