misakanet_memory_context

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and covers behavior thoroughly: side effects (none), auth (none), rate limits (none), and the missing-task error case. It also explains the return shape as a ready-to-inject context block.

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 high-value information is front-loaded and the behavioral/output/error notes are compressed into scannable clauses. The input-semantics sentence is redundant with the schema, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

Even without a structured output schema, the description conveys the full return contract, parameters, error case, auth/side-effect/rate-limit profile, and intended invocation time. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3; the description's input-semantics line mostly restates schema fields already documented (task required, domain optional filter, top_n default/max). It adds no meaningful new parameter meaning beyond 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?

"Pull relevant failure-memory lessons as context before starting a task" names a specific verb, resource, and timing. It is clearly distinguished from generic search/lesson tools by the stated goal of building injectable context for the agent.

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 explicit timing: "at the beginning of a coding session or before attempting a non-trivial operation." It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not conditions, so it misses the top bar for exclusion guidance.

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