memory_knowledge_graph

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a query operation but omits details like idempotency, performance implications, or access requirements.

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 sentence, concise but under-informative. It front-loads the purpose but does not structure additional details, making it less useful than a slightly longer but more comprehensive description.

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?

Despite having a nested object parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description provides almost no additional context. It leaves the agent guessing about the query format, return values, and usage constraints, making it highly incomplete.

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 input schema defines a single opaque 'query' object with no properties, and the description adds minimal context ('for relationships and paths'). Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fails to meaningfully compensate by explaining the query structure or required fields.

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?

Description clearly states it queries a knowledge graph for relationships and paths, distinguishing it from sibling tools like memory_recall or memory_similar which target other memory aspects. However, it lacks specificity about the type of relationships or paths.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or potential use cases.

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