mcp-memento

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 describes key behavioral traits: the decay rules (e.g., no decay for critical memories, reduced decay for high importance), the decay formula, minimum confidence threshold, and return values. It does not mention side effects like performance impact or permissions required, but covers core behavior well for a maintenance tool.

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 with clear sections (purpose, usage, rules, formula, returns) and avoids redundancy. However, some details like the decay formula and breakdown by memory type could be slightly verbose for a tool description, though they are informative. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, earning its place efficiently.

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 complexity (applies decay rules system-wide or to specific memories) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job of covering behavior, rules, and returns. It explains the decay logic, formula, and output summary, which compensates for missing structured fields. A minor gap is no explicit error handling or performance considerations.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly explaining the optional memory_id parameter. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify format or examples for memory_id). According to the rules, with high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, which is appropriate here.

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: 'Apply automatic confidence decay based on last access time.' It specifies the verb ('apply'), resource ('confidence'), and mechanism ('based on last access time'), distinguishing it from siblings like adjust_memento_confidence (manual adjustment) or boost_memento_confidence (increasing confidence).

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 explicit usage contexts ('System maintenance to keep knowledge base fresh', 'Applying intelligent decay rules', 'Monthly confidence adjustment routine'), which clearly indicate when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., adjust_memento_confidence for manual adjustments), which prevents a score of 5.

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