NOVAI memory objects by entity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly lists the fields returned (object id, object type, owner, heights, hex data) and defines the object type codes. This is thorough for a read-only list tool, though it does not mention authorization or side effects.

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 mostly concise, leading with the main purpose in one sentence. The list of object type codes, while useful, adds verbosity. Overall well-structured and front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by detailing the response fields and providing a code mapping. The parameter is fully described in the schema. This is nearly complete for an agent to understand usage and output.

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%, with the schema providing the description 'Owner entity id, 64 hex characters.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond restating 'owned by an entity.' Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (List), the resource (on-chain memory objects), and the context (owned by an entity). It also lists the specific fields returned and provides a code mapping, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on signals, balances, or blocks.

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 lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from context.

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