MemoVault

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions returning recent memories with a limit, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied but not stated), pagination, sorting order, error conditions, or performance characteristics. It adds minimal context beyond the basic function.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but slightly verbose; every sentence earns its place by adding value, such as the parameter explanation and return format.

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 values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits like recency definition or error handling, making it incomplete for optimal agent use without annotations.

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 meaningful semantics for the single parameter 'limit,' explaining it as 'Maximum number of memories to return (default: 10).' This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage by clarifying the parameter's purpose and default value, though it doesn't detail constraints like minimum/maximum values.

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 the tool 'Show recent memories,' which is a clear verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'get_memory' (singular) or 'search_memories' (filtered search), making the purpose somewhat vague in context. It's not tautological but lacks specificity about what 'recent' means or how this differs from other list-like tools.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify if this is for a quick overview versus detailed retrieval, or when to prefer 'search_memories' for filtered results. The description implies usage for recent items but offers no explicit context or exclusions.

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