MemoVault

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a memory, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling (e.g., what happens if the ID doesn't exist), or performance characteristics. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized: it starts with a clear purpose statement, followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Each sentence earns its place by directly contributing to understanding. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the sections into a single paragraph, but the structure enhances readability without unnecessary verbosity.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., error cases) and usage guidelines, which are minor gaps in an otherwise adequate context for a simple retrieval tool.

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 description adds minimal semantics beyond the input schema: it explains that 'memory_id' is 'The unique identifier of the memory,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the schema only defines the parameter's type (string) and requirement, so the description compensates slightly but doesn't provide format details (e.g., UUID, length constraints) or examples. This meets the baseline for low coverage with some added value.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve a specific memory by ID.' This specifies the verb ('Retrieve'), resource ('memory'), and key constraint ('by ID'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'list_memories' or 'search_memories' beyond the 'specific' qualifier, which is why it doesn't reach a 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'list_memories' for multiple memories or 'search_memories' for filtered searches, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The lack of usage context leaves the agent to infer based on tool names alone.

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