mem_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'reads graph facts' and 'inspects topic-key memory', implying read-only behavior, but does not explicitly state that it does not modify data. It also does not disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The description is somewhat transparent about the read nature but lacks explicit behavioral details.

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 concise, one sentence, and front-loaded with the main purpose. It lists the key actions without unnecessary detail. It could be slightly more structured by separating the actions, but it is efficient and to the point.

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 has 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat minimal. It does not explain the return format or how the different actions affect the response. The schema covers parameter semantics, but the description does not provide guidance on how to use the tool effectively, such as which actions require which parameters or what the 'health' action does. For a complex tool with many parameters, more context would be beneficial.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only summarizing the actions. The schema already explains each parameter's purpose, so the description does not need to compensate. However, the description does not clarify the interplay between parameters (e.g., which combinations are valid), which could be helpful.

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's purpose: 'Project-level memory navigation' and lists the specific actions it supports (lists projects, summarizes one project, reads graph facts, or inspects topic-key memory). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like mem_save and mem_recall, which are likely for saving and recalling memories. However, it could be more specific about the 'health' action, which is not mentioned in the description.

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 implies usage for project-level memory navigation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like mem_recall or mem_get. It does not provide exclusions or alternative tool names. The action enum provides some guidance on what each action does, but the description does not elaborate on when to choose this tool over siblings.

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