get_decayed_graph

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the core behavior—returning the knowledge graph with confidence values decayed by time—and the use of 'Get' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not elaborate on return format, potential side effects, or edge cases, though none are strongly suggested.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the essential purpose without any unnecessary words. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the lack of output schema and annotations, the description adequately conveys the main behavior and the optional override parameters. It is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool, though it could mention the default half-life calculation or the graph's composition (e.g., entities and relations).

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%, with both decay_factor and reference_time already described in the schema. The description adds only the context that decay is time-based but does not provide additional meaning beyond the parameter descriptions themselves, so it meets the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'Memento MCP knowledge graph memory' and specifies the unique aspect 'with confidence values decayed based on time'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_graph_at_time, which focuses on temporal snapshots rather than confidence decay.

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 when time-decayed confidence values are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_graph or get_graph_at_time. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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