mem_relevant_to

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

Although no annotations exist to provide safety profile, the description discloses the ranking pipeline (anchor/module/literal/semantic), what it skips, and the return shape. It doesn't explicitly state 'read-only', but the retrieval nature is clear; slightly more detail on side effects would be ideal.

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 compact, front-loaded with the key differentiator, and uses a clean PARAMETERS block. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description includes a RETURNS section outlining the response shape. Combined with explicit workflow guidance and parameter clarifications, it covers the tool's role and behavior thoroughly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining 'inherits get_briefing memory framing' for format, and clarifying the purpose of files ('surfaces anchored memories'). It supports the schema without redundancy.

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 uses a specific verb ('ranked memories for a task') and clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming get_briefing as an alternative ('use instead of...'). It also explains the niche ('when project context is already loaded and you only want the relevant memory layer').

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?

Explicitly describes when to use this vs get_briefing, and places it in a progressive disclosure sequence ('Second step... after get_briefing... then mem_get'). Also clarifies what is skipped, leaving no ambiguity about scope.

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