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: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'Find' and 'Returns'), includes filtering capabilities, shows relationships, provides sorting (lowest confidence first), and returns specific data structures. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like pagination or performance characteristics.

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, use cases, features, returns) and each sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by combining some bullet points, but overall it's efficiently organized with no redundant information.

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 output schema, no annotations), the description provides comprehensive context about what the tool does, when to use it, what features it offers, and what it returns. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit output schema documentation, but the 'Returns' section adequately describes the response structure.

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 schema already fully documents both parameters (threshold and limit). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning the default threshold (< 0.3) and that results are sorted by confidence, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about parameter interactions or edge cases.

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 ('Find memories with low confidence scores') and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on low-confidence filtering rather than general search, creation, or adjustment operations. It explicitly identifies the target resource (memories with low confidence scores).

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 scenarios in a 'Use for' section with four specific contexts (identifying obsolete knowledge, cleanup, quality assurance, review). It clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives by focusing on low-confidence assessment rather than general retrieval or modification tasks.

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