mcp-memento

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, potential side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (especially critical since there's no output schema). The description is purely functional without 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and filtering mechanism without unnecessary elaboration or redundancy.

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 7-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what constitutes a 'memento relationship', how results are returned, pagination behavior, or error conditions. The agent must rely entirely on the input schema for parameter understanding and has no guidance on output format or behavioral characteristics.

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 description lists the four primary context fields (scope, conditions, evidence, components) but doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the 100% schema coverage already provides. The schema descriptions comprehensively explain each parameter's purpose, constraints, and examples. The description merely restates parameter names without additional value.

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 searches memento relationships using structured context fields (scope, conditions, evidence, components). It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'memento relationships' with the filtering mechanism. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_mementos' or 'contextual_memento_search', which appear similar.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_mementos' or 'contextual_memento_search'. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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