Semantic Memory Query

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that results are ranked with fields like slug, title, type, snippet, score, provenance. Gives error recovery guidance. Could mention default limit and clamping behavior (present in schema but not description), but overall adds value.

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?

Extremely concise with structured bullets and headings. Four compact lines (excluding title) that front-load purpose and include return format and error context. No wasted words.

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 output schema exists (not shown but indicated), description adequately covers return summary and error handling. With 11 parameters, description is comprehensive enough for agent decision-making. Minor omission: default limit/clamping not restated.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, merely referencing 'filters' generically. Meets baseline but does not exceed.

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 opens with 'Semantic search across Memkin memory,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling 'search' by specifying fuzzy/conceptual recall versus exact keyword matching.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('fuzzy, conceptual recall') and when NOT to use ('exact keyword matching; use `search` instead'). Also provides error handling advice ('broaden filters or retry with fewer constraints').

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