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. It discloses behavioral traits such as the return content ('memory counts by type, recent memories (up to 20), unresolved problems') and default values (implied in examples). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 with the core purpose, followed by return details and examples. Every sentence adds value, but the inclusion of 'EXAMPLES:' as a header slightly disrupts flow. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, return content, and usage examples, but lacks details on output structure, error cases, or integration with sibling tools, making it adequate but with clear gaps for a tool in this context.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing examples that clarify usage: 'days=7' for last week and 'days=30, project="/app"' for last month with project filtering. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical descriptions, though it doesn't fully explain parameter interactions or constraints.

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: 'Get summary of recent memento activity for session context.' It specifies the verb ('Get summary') and resource ('recent memento activity'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_memento_statistics' or 'get_low_confidence_mementos' beyond the 'recent' and 'session context' qualifiers.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'for session context' and examples showing time ranges and project filtering, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_memento_statistics' or 'search_mementos'. The examples provide context but no clear guidance on exclusions or comparisons.

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