query_mind

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 mentions that decayed memories are hidden by default, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose other important details such as the impact of querying, authentication requirements, or the format of returned data.

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, consisting of two sentences that directly convey the core functionality and a key behavioral detail. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary text, making it easy to parse. The brevity is appropriate given the tool's simplicity.

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 low complexity of the tool (3 parameters, no nested objects, no output schema), the description provides a sufficient overview. It explains the query logic and default filtering, which is enough for an agent to understand the basic operation. However, the lack of an output schema means the agent must infer the return format from the description, which is somewhat vague ('memories') but acceptable for a simple query.

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 input schema already describes all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description does not add new semantic information beyond what the schema provides; it only restates concepts like 'by concept nodes' and the default hiding of decayed memories. Thus, the description adds no additional value over the schema.

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 function: querying memories by concept nodes. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('Query memories') and explains the mechanism ('by concept nodes'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like faiss_search or get_related_nodes, which could lead to confusion.

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 the use case is retrieving memories related to specific concepts, but it offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as faiss_search or get_related_nodes. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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