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 the two-phase process, scoping behavior ('no leakage outside context'), and return format. It doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context beyond basic functionality.

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, when to use, how to use, returns), front-loaded with the core functionality. Every sentence earns its place by providing distinct information without redundancy. The formatting enhances readability while maintaining 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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining the tool's behavior, usage, and returns. It covers the two-phase process, scoping constraints, and return format. The main gap is lack of explicit error handling or performance characteristics, but overall it's highly complete for a search tool with good parameter documentation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the purpose of each parameter ('context root', 'search query within context', 'relationship traversal depth') and provides default values not in the schema. This adds value beyond what the schema provides, justifying a higher score.

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 verbs ('search within context', 'find related memories', 'search only within that set') and distinguishes it from siblings by emphasizing semantic scoping without embeddings. It explicitly differentiates from general search tools like 'search_mementos' by focusing on context-bound searches.

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 includes explicit 'WHEN TO USE' and 'HOW TO USE' sections that provide clear guidance on when to use this tool ('searching within a specific problem context', 'finding solutions in related knowledge') and how to use it with specific parameters. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on scoped discovery rather than general searches or relationship searches.

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