memberberries

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies read-style retrieval but never states whether it is read-only, whether calls have side effects, or what shape the response takes (e.g., whether check_events triggers anything server-side).

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 short sentences with no filler, and the functional claim comes first. It is efficient, though the second sentence spends its words on an implementation detail rather than clarifying the operations.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves too much unsaid: what a "memory" or "starter" is, what check_events does, and what the return values look like. An agent would have to guess before invoking it.

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?

There is one required parameter, but the description never explains what get_starters, get_memories, or check_events actually return or how they differ. Although schema coverage is 100%, the enum labels are not self-explanatory, so the description is the only place that could disambiguate and it does not.

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 says it "Access[es] Member Berries memories — conversation starters and recent activities," but "Member Berries" is unexplained jargon and "Access" is not a specific verb. It never tells the agent what distinguishes this from siblings like briefing, notes, or reminders.

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 only usage hint is "Built-in starters work without a custom host prompt," which is a configuration note rather than guidance on when to call the tool. There is no mention of when to use this versus the sibling memory/briefing tools, and no exclusions.

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