mcp-memento

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining key behavioral traits: it's 'optimized for fuzzy matching' with automatic handling of 'plurals, tenses, and case variations', specifies what types of knowledge it works with ('long-term knowledge that survives across sessions'), and mentions performance characteristics ('less effective for acronyms, proper nouns, exact technical terms'). It doesn't cover rate limits or authentication needs, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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 (BEST FOR, USE FOR, etc.) and uses bullet points effectively. While comprehensive, some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Fuzzy/approximate matching' appears in multiple places). Most sentences earn their place by providing distinct guidance, though it could be slightly more concise.

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?

For a 5-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides substantial context about when and how to use the tool, behavioral characteristics, and alternatives. It covers the tool's strengths and limitations well. The main gap is lack of information about return format or pagination behavior, but given the comprehensive usage guidance, it's mostly complete.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific information beyond the schema - it mentions the 'query' parameter in examples and implies 'project_path' filtering, but doesn't provide additional semantic context about how parameters affect results. This meets the baseline for 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 tool's purpose as 'finding mementos using natural language queries' with 'fuzzy matching' capabilities. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying this is the 'primary tool' for this function and explicitly mentions 'search_mementos' as an alternative for different use cases, providing clear differentiation.

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 extensive usage guidance with explicit 'BEST FOR', 'USE FOR', 'DO NOT USE FOR', and 'LESS EFFECTIVE FOR' sections. It names specific alternatives ('search_mementos with tags') for cases where this tool is less effective, and includes a 'FALLBACK' recommendation, offering comprehensive when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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