Memory Relationships

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds that results are limited to explicit links on a visibility-scoped memory, which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, ordering, or what happens when no links exist.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scope constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably over-compressed for a tool with pagination, but no sentence is wasted.

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 simple read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations that carry the safety profile, the description covers the essential scoping. Since there is no output schema, a brief word on what a returned relationship looks like would have closed the remaining gap.

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 memory_id, limit, and cursor are already documented in the schema; the baseline is therefore 3. The description reinforces that the lookup targets a single visible Memory, but adds no format, cursor, or limit semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb ("Read") and resource ("explicit personal links for one visible Memory"), which distinguishes it from write-side siblings such as link_memories and remove_memory_relationship. It does not, however, name those siblings or otherwise explicitly route the agent, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 clause "no automated analysis" implies this tool returns only human/agent-authored links rather than inferred ones, which is a useful usage boundary. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, so usage is only implied rather than stated.

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