find_related

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool returns memory names but does not disclose whether it is read-only, what happens if no wikilinks exist, or any other side effects. Additional context is needed.

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?

Two sentences, no unnecessary information, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence earns its place.

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 a single required parameter, no output schema, and low complexity, the description sufficiently explains what the tool does and what it returns (related memory names). It is complete for the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single parameter 'name' with a clear description. The tool's description echoes the schema's meaning but adds no new insight beyond what is already in the input schema.

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 states 'Find memories linked from or to a given memory via [[wikilinks]]', specifying the verb (Find), resource (memories linked via wikilinks), and clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like get_memory (single retrieval) and search_memory (full-text search).

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 usage for retrieving related memories via wikilinks but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like search_memory or list_memories. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are mentioned.

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