memory_query

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that retrieval is bounded, engagement-scoped, local, and includes promoted lessons, which conveys read-style scope and source, but it does not explicitly state read-only safety, permissions, rate limits, or side effects.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and waste-free, with scope qualifiers placed before the resource. It is concise, though extremely terse for a five-parameter query tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the tool has five undocumented parameters and no annotations. The description states the broad purpose but leaves key call semantics, filtering behavior, and usage conditions incomplete.

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 0% across five parameters, so the description must compensate. It hints at engagement scope and promoted lessons, but gives no meaning for query, limit, entity_type, or the relationship between engagement_id and the retrieval scope.

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 identifies a retrieval operation over local temporal memory and promoted lessons, with scope qualifiers "bounded" and "engagement-scoped." It is distinct from siblings like evidence_read or capabilities_search, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The phrase "engagement-scoped retrieval" implies a context but does not tell an agent when to choose memory_query over evidence_read or capabilities_search.

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