get_mementos

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies the scope semantics but doesn't disclose what happens with no scope (all active mementos, presumably), whether results are paginated, ordered, or limited in size, or what an 'active' memento means versus inactive ones. For a read tool with zero annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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?

Two sentences, zero waste. Every clause serves a distinct purpose: the verb+resource line states what it does, and the second line clarifies the parameter semantics.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the essential scope semantics well. However, no annotations exist to fill gaps about behavioral details (pagination, ordering, active definition), and there is no output schema. It's adequate but leaves 'active' and potential side-effect-free assumptions unexplained.

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 the schema already documents the scope parameter. The description adds value by explaining what each scope value returns (all vs global vs repo), which goes slightly beyond the schema's terse 'which memory area to read.' This is at baseline 3.

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 states the verb+resource ('Returns active mementos') with clear scoping options. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools like get_memento_attachments, but the sibling set includes many mutation/management tools, so the read-oriented purpose is reasonably distinguishable.

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 gives clear context on the three scope values and what each returns, but it doesn't state when to prefer this over siblings or exclude alternatives. The scope guidance is useful but there's no explicit when-to-use vs alternative direction.

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