get_related_mementos

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses default value for max_depth (1) which schema lacks. However, omits safety characteristics (read-only vs destructive), error behavior when memory_id not found, and performance implications of increasing depth.

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?

Excellent structure: one-sentence purpose summary, parameter filter note, then EXAMPLES section. Every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with clear intent before diving into parameter specifics.

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 100% schema coverage and clear examples, description is nearly complete. Minor gap: no mention of return value structure (list of mementos) since no output schema exists, though this is somewhat inferable from the tool name and examples.

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 has 100% description coverage (baseline 3). Description adds value by providing concrete enum-like examples for relationship_types (SOLVES, CAUSES) and their semantic meanings ('find solutions', 'find root causes'), plus noting the default depth value.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Find') + resource ('mementos') + mechanism ('via relationships'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_memento (single fetch), search_mementos (text search), and create_memento_relationship (mutating operation) by emphasizing graph traversal from a specific starting memory.

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?

Provides concrete EXAMPLES section showing two distinct usage patterns (finding solutions via SOLVES, finding root causes via CAUSES with depth). However, lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparison to similar traversal tools like search_memento_relationships_by_context.

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