memory_thread

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal useful behavioral traits: traversal happens in both directions along RESPONDS_TO edges and results are sorted chronologically. It does not mention output shape, errors, or edge-case behavior, but the core runtime behavior is transparent.

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 compact and front-loaded, giving the essential operation in the first sentence and then enriching it with directional and ordering details in the second. There is minor redundancy between 'return the thread' and 'returning them sorted chronologically', but the overall structure is efficient and readable.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description carries significant responsibility. It conveys the main purpose, starting point, traversal direction, and sort order, but it leaves max_depth semantics and the exact shape of the returned thread unstated, which leaves room for an agent to misread the tool's limits.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It clarifies 'start_id' as the starting memory ID, but it never explains 'max_depth', such as whether it limits the number of hops or nodes. Given that one of the two parameters is effectively undocumented, the parameter semantics are incomplete.

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 clearly states that the tool walks the RESPONDS_TO chain starting from a memory ID and returns the thread, which is a specific verb and resource. It also adds detail about bidirectional traversal and chronological ordering, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like memory_context or graph_query.

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 a thread of connected memories is needed, but it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternative tools. An agent must infer the appropriate use case solely from the tool name and the word 'thread'.

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