chat_with_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions that responses are 'enhanced with relevant memories automatically,' but lacks details on behavioral traits such as how memories are selected, whether this requires specific permissions, rate limits, or what happens if no memories are found. The description is minimal and doesn't adequately disclose operational 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, then parameter explanations, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 somewhat complete but has gaps. It explains the purpose, usage, and parameters, but lacks behavioral details and doesn't fully leverage the output schema (which exists but isn't referenced). For a memory-enhanced chat tool, more context on how memories are integrated would be helpful.

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 includes an 'Args' section that explains 'query' as the user's question and 'top_k' as the number of memories to use as context with a default. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, but it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap (e.g., no details on 'top_k' constraints or 'query' format).

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: 'Chat with memory-enhanced responses' and 'The response will incorporate relevant memories automatically.' It specifies the verb (chat) and resource (memory-enhanced responses), but doesn't explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like 'search_memories' or 'get_memory' which might also retrieve memories.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'Use this for questions where stored memories might provide context.' However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among the sibling tools (e.g., when to use 'search_memories' vs. this tool).

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