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 describes the filtering and traversal behavior (relationship_types and max_depth), which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or what happens if no matches are found. The examples help but don't fully compensate for missing behavioral traits.

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 concise filtering details, and then practical examples. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 is incomplete for a tool with 3 parameters and complex behavior (relationship traversal). It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks details on output format, error handling, or advanced usage scenarios. The examples help but don't fully address the complexity.

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 all parameters fully. The description adds minimal value by providing example values (e.g., ['SOLVES'], ['CAUSES']) and clarifying default behavior (max_depth default is 1), but doesn't explain parameter interactions or semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Find mementos connected to a specific memory via relationships') and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_memento' (which retrieves a single memento) or 'search_memento_relationships_by_context' (which searches by context rather than from a specific memory). It specifies both the resource (mementos) and mechanism (relationships from a memory).

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 this tool (to find related mementos via relationships from a specific memory) and includes examples that illustrate use cases like finding solutions or root causes. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives among sibling tools (e.g., 'search_memento_relationships_by_context' might be an alternative for broader searches).

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