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 mentions that the tool 'searches' and 'returns' results, but doesn't specify aspects like whether it's read-only, how it handles errors, if there are rate limits, or what authentication is needed. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by usage guidance and parameter details. Each sentence adds value, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the 'Returns' section more seamlessly or avoiding redundancy with the output 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage, and parameters, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values in detail. However, it could benefit from more behavioral context or sibling tool differentiation.

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 beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'query' is 'What to search for' and 'top_k' is the 'Maximum number of results (default: 5),' providing clear context for both parameters. This compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't detail format constraints or advanced usage.

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 as 'Search for relevant memories' and 'find stored information related to a topic or question,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this search function from sibling tools like 'list_memories' or 'get_memory,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance with 'Use this to find stored information related to a topic or question,' which suggests when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'list_memories' or 'chat_with_memory,' and doesn't mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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