MemorySync Documentation

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

The annotations already declare this as a read-only, closed-world operation, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds value by noting the output lists top-level sections with page counts, but does not describe return format or pagination, though an output schema is present.

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 one concise sentence that efficiently conveys what the tool does and its purpose. No wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and clear sibling context, the description is sufficient. It covers purpose and usage context without requiring further detail.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate because there is no need for additional explanation.

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 ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('top-level documentation sections') plus the included page counts. It clearly distinguishes this from the siblings by framing it as an orientation step before searching.

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?

It provides clear context by stating the tool is used 'to orient before searching,' which implies the appropriate moment to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools like read_doc/search_docs.

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 include readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, which already establish this as a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing the return format ('full Markdown text') and clarifying that it returns complete content rather than a snippet. No contradiction exists between the description and annotations.

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 two tight sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose (read full Markdown page), and the second earns its place by adding usage guidance. Each sentence contributes distinct value.

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 1-parameter read tool with rich annotations, a fully descriptive schema, and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: what it does and when to prefer it over search. The only minor gap is that it does not reference list_doc_sections, one of the sibling tools, so the full alternative landscape is not explicitly mapped.

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% — the single 'path' parameter is thoroughly documented with examples ('/quickstart', '/api/memory/add', or full URL). With such high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not need to compensate. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Read the full Markdown text of one documentation page.' It clearly defines the scope (full text, Markdown format) and distinguishes from the search sibling by noting it is preferred over a 'search snippet' when exact details are needed. This differentiates the tool from search_docs and makes its purpose unambiguous.

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 second sentence provides a clear context rule: 'Prefer this over a search snippet when you need exact method names, parameters, fields or limits.' This is explicit when-to-use guidance that implicitly identifies search_docs as the alternative. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 the agent knows it is read-only and not open world. The description adds that it returns headings and a link to the full Markdown text, providing useful context beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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, direct sentence that is front-loaded. It states the action and expected output with no unnecessary words, earning 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 the presence of an output schema and clear annotations, the description is sufficient. It covers the main behavior and output without needing to explain return values or safety, as those are already structured.

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 both parameters are well-documented. The tool description does not add extra parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so it relies on the schema for parameter semantics.

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 the action (search) and resource (MemorySync documentation), and specifies the return value (matching pages with headings and a link to the full Markdown text). This distinguishes it from sibling tools list_doc_sections and read_doc.

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 clearly implies its usage for searching documentation, providing clear context but not explicitly stating when to use it over alternatives like list_doc_sections or read_doc. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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