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 adds useful context: the default behavior for 'include_relationships' and an example invocation. However, it doesn't cover other behavioral traits like error handling, permissions needed, rate limits, or what the return format looks like (especially since there's no output schema). This leaves gaps for a tool with mutation siblings.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and an example. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 (retrieval with an optional parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose, usage, and a parameter default, but lacks details on return values, error cases, or how it fits into the broader memory system with siblings like 'get_related_mementos'. This makes it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 documents both parameters fully. The description adds minimal value: it mentions the default for 'include_relationships' and provides an example with 'memory_id', but doesn't explain parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., format of 'memory_id' or implications of relationships). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Retrieve a specific memento by ID.' It specifies the verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('memento'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'search_mementos' (searching) or 'delete_memento' (deleting). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_related_mementos' or 'recall_mementos', which might also retrieve memories, so it's not fully sibling-distinctive.

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 it: 'Use when you have a memory_id from search results or store_memento.' This gives practical guidance on prerequisites. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., 'get_related_mementos' for relationships without the main memory), so it's not fully comprehensive.

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