Memphora

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 effectively communicates this is a read/search operation (not destructive) and implies it returns relevant information from personal memories. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, or how results are ranked/returned.

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 efficiently structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose and usage context, the second provides concrete examples. Every element serves a clear purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by clearly explaining purpose, usage context, and providing examples. However, it lacks information about what the search returns (format, structure) and doesn't mention authentication or access considerations, which would be helpful given the personal nature of the data.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. It mentions searching 'for relevant information' which aligns with the query parameter but provides no additional syntax or format details.

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 with specific verb ('Search') and resource ('your personal memories'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on retrieval of personal information rather than deletion, extraction, listing, or storage. It provides concrete examples that illustrate the scope.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('when the user asks about something they may have mentioned before, their preferences, past experiences, or any personal information') and provides three specific example queries. This gives clear context for selection over alternatives like memphora_list_memories or memphora_store.

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