KnowledgeSmith MCP

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 describes a read operation ('Get') and mentions default values, but it doesn't cover important aspects like permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'memory episodes' entail. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, with a clear purpose statement, parameter explanations, return value, and an example. It uses bullet points for Args and Returns, making it easy to scan. However, the inclusion of metadata tags (@REQ, @BP, @TASK) adds some noise without contributing to tool understanding, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 that there is an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to explain return values in detail, which it handles adequately. However, with no annotations and 2 parameters, it lacks context on behavioral traits like safety or performance. The description provides basic usage but could be more complete for a tool interacting with memory 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?

The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'group_id' is for retrieving episodes from a specific group and defaults to a default group if not provided, and 'last_n' specifies the number of most recent episodes with a default of 10. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't detail data types or constraints beyond defaults.

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: 'Get the most recent memory episodes for a specific group.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('memory episodes'), and scope ('for a specific group'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_memory_facts' or 'search_memory_nodes', which might also retrieve memory-related data, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 implies usage by mentioning 'most recent' episodes and providing an example, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_memory_facts' or 'search_memory_nodes'. It gives some context (retrieving recent episodes for a group) but lacks clear exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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