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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a search/retrieval operation (implied non-destructive), mentions case-insensitive tag normalization, provides search tolerance modes (strict/normal/fuzzy), and includes practical examples. However, it doesn't cover aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, leaving some gaps.

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 and efficiently uses every sentence. It starts with a clear purpose statement, follows with usage guidelines, details parameters with practical notes, provides concrete examples, and ends with an alternative tool recommendation. No wasted text; each section adds distinct value in a logical flow.

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 (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a strong job. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, key parameters with semantics, and behavioral notes like case-insensitive matching. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or pagination limits, which would be helpful for a search tool with many parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining parameter usage in context: it lists key parameters (tags, memory_types, min_importance, search_tolerance, match_mode) with practical guidance (e.g., 'tags: Filter by exact tag match (most reliable for acronyms)') and provides examples showing how parameters combine. This enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical definitions.

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 performs 'Advanced search with fine-grained filters for precise retrieval of mementos,' specifying both the action (search/retrieval) and resource (mementos). It explicitly distinguishes from its sibling 'recall_mementos' by stating 'USE THIS TOOL FIRST (not recall) when searching for:' specific categories like acronyms and proper nouns, making the differentiation unambiguous.

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 versus alternatives. It states 'USE THIS TOOL FIRST (not recall) when searching for:' and lists specific use cases (acronyms, proper nouns, known tags, technical terms), and concludes with 'For conceptual/natural language queries, use recall_mementos instead,' clearly defining the boundary with the sibling tool.

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