knowsme

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the no-args default returns recent changes across all files, and the restore path is described as re-saving the text with remember. It does not discuss pagination or result limits.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition, then usage triggers, then the parameter matrix, then the restore hint. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does so: it conveys what each call mode yields (listing vs. full version text) and the complete recovery workflow. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks — specifically that omitting filename returns recent changes across all files and that version_id only takes effect alongside filename, producing full text rather than a listing.

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+resource ('earlier versions of the user's memory files') and defines the exact scope: text a save replaced or a forget removed. It cleanly distinguishes itself from the recall/search siblings by describing recovery of prior states rather than retrieval of current ones.

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?

Explicitly names the triggering situations ('undo a change', 'get back something that was overwritten or forgotten', 'see what a note used to say') and spells out the progressive call patterns for zero, one, and two arguments. It also routes the agent to the correct follow-up tool (remember) for restoration.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the call is cheap, returns no file contents, and returns a metadata-plus-gist summary — useful since there is no output schema to describe the payload.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned and the cost, followed by when to reach for it. Three sentences, all carrying weight; the closing note about project notes is slightly tangential but still informative.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully characterizes the return shape and cost, and annotations cover the read-only profile. It is nearly complete for a zero-required-param listing tool; only sibling differentiation and any pagination/scale limits are unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'context' parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema, including the 'all' sentinel and matching behavior. The description says nothing about it, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('List every file in the user's portable memory') and enumerates what comes back: names, change times, one-line gist. It does not name or contrast with the sibling tools (history, recall, search_memories), so an agent must infer the distinction itself.

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?

Gives clear situational triggers — check what is already known before asking the user to repeat themselves or before claiming ignorance — which is stronger than generic 'use for listing' guidance. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. search_memories) or stating when this tool is the wrong choice.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful domain context about what context.md contains, but says nothing about failure behavior (e.g. a nonexistent filename) or what a read returns. With annotations carrying the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

Three short sentences, all front-loaded: action, then the special-case file's meaning, then the fallback. Every sentence earns its place with zero padding.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers what it reads, the key file's semantics, and the fallback path. The only minor gap is error behavior for an unknown filename, which is not addressed.

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% and there is a single required parameter, so the schema already documents 'filename' including an example. The description reinforces the same example but adds no new syntax or format constraints. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Read one file from the user's portable memory') and immediately distinguishes itself from list_memories by explaining the filename-lookup alternative. An agent can tell this apart from history/search_memories without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('read it at the start of a conversation') and names the alternative tool plus the condition that selects it ('Use list_memories if you do not know the filename'). Nothing is left to inference.

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

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real traits: the tool is cheap and indexes only metadata ('no file contents'), which tells the agent results may miss content-level matches. No pagination or result-count behavior is disclosed, but the cost/coverage signal is genuinely useful.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, then trigger and examples follow; every sentence adds information. The middle sentence is dense and parenthetical-heavy, which slightly slows scanning.

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 single-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers what is searched, when to use it, how to phrase input, and its cost/coverage limits. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by showing how to phrase the query ('problem statement pitch', 'invoice format'), which is actionable guidance the schema's generic 'a few words' does not provide.

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 and resource (find/search notes) and defines the search scope precisely: every note's name, one-line gist, project and folder. It does not name or contrast with the siblings (recall, list_memories, history), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('Use it BEFORE you make something for them') with concrete artifact types and query examples. It lacks exclusion guidance — nothing says when recall or list_memories is the better choice instead.

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