ask_memory

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses that the tool returns a retrieved/synthesized answer and states that it will honestly report when the memory store is empty or no match is found. This is strong behavioral coverage for a simple retrieval tool, though it does not explicitly confirm that it makes no modifications.

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 three short sentences, each earning its place: define the resource, state the use case, and describe return behavior plus edge cases. There is no filler, no repetition of schema content, and the most important distinguishing information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the resource, the intended use case, the return behavior, and the empty/no-match edge case. It does not explicitly discuss side effects or contrast with sibling tools, but nothing essential appears missing for correct invocation.

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%, and the single parameter 'question' already includes an explanatory example ('想回忆的内容，如...'). The tool description reinforces the memory-store context but adds no materially new parameter-level details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with '问自己的长期记忆库（本地 markdown 文件）', giving a specific verb, resource, and storage format. It lists the content domains it covers (preferences, facts, notes, conclusions) and is implicitly distinguished from the sibling ask_web by emphasizing '自己的长期记忆库'. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 phrase '用于回忆此前记住的偏好、事实、笔记、结论' gives clear guidance on when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives like ask_web or delegate, so it falls short of a 5, but the intended use case is unmistakable.

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