CPersona

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, establishing safety. Description adds valuable behavioral context by disclosing the hybrid search methodology (vector + FTS5 + keyword) that determines how results are ranked and retrieved. Does not describe output format, pagination, or performance characteristics (e.g., latency of deep search).

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with action verb. Every element earns its place: 'relevant' signals semantic ranking, 'multi-strategy' explains capability, parenthetical technologies specify implementation. Zero waste.

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?

Adequate given rich schema (100% coverage) and readOnly annotation. The search methodology disclosure helps. However, lacking an output schema, the description should ideally describe what constitutes a 'memory' object or return structure to be 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 coverage is 100%, providing baseline 3. Description adds meaningful context beyond schema: 'multi-strategy search' explains the query processing logic (vector + FTS5 + keyword) that the schema's generic 'Search query' label does not convey. Also implies 'relevant' ranking for the limit parameter.

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?

Clear specific verb ('Recall') + resource ('memories') + mechanism ('multi-strategy search'). Distinguishes from siblings like 'store' or 'delete_memory', and the mention of 'search' and relevance distinguishes from 'list_memories'. However, it does not explicitly name siblings or contrast use cases.

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?

Contains implied usage guidance through 'relevant memories' and 'search', suggesting use for lookup/retrieval rather than bulk enumeration. However, lacks explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use rules or named alternatives (e.g., when to use 'list_memories' vs 'recall').

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