mcp-memento

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read-only guidance tool (implied by 'Get' and protocol explanation), provides structured onboarding steps, includes optimization targets (avoid 6+ tool calls), and outlines usage contexts. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like response format or error conditions, which could be useful for an agent.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, but it's lengthy with detailed sections (MEMENTO ONBOARDING PROTOCOL, OPTIMIZED RETRIEVAL, etc.). While informative, some content (like the retrieval flow details) might be more appropriate for a separate guide rather than the tool description itself, reducing conciseness. However, it's well-structured with bullet points and headings.

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 complexity (onboarding for a memory system) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral context (retrieval flows, optimization targets), parameter semantics, and distinctions from other tools. This provides the agent with all necessary context to use the tool effectively without needing additional structured data.

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 with a clear enum for the 'topic' parameter. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of each enum value (e.g., 'protocol': Full onboarding protocol, 'retrieval_flow': Optimized retrieval guide), which goes beyond the schema's basic enum list. This helps the agent understand what each topic option returns.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Get comprehensive onboarding protocol for Memento including tool usage guidance, retrieval flow optimization, and best practices.' This is a specific verb ('Get') + resource ('onboarding protocol') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_mementos or recall_mementos, which are for actual retrieval operations rather than guidance.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'Run memento_onboarding() at session start' and 'USE memento_onboarding(topic="...") for specific guidance' with enumerated topics. It also distinguishes it from alternatives by explaining the retrieval flow for other tools (search_mementos, recall_mementos) and the critical distinction between Memento and Session memory, clarifying this tool's role as onboarding rather than operational.

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