memory_facet_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden and does it well: it discloses a 50-result cap, the returned fields (targetId, targetType, matchedFacets), and that full target records are NOT returned, plus the AND/OR evaluation semantics. It omits any auth/permission or pagination behavior, but for a query operation the disclosed constraints are substantial.

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?

Front-loads what the tool returns, then the required inputs and their interaction, then the narrowing parameter, then the return shape and alternatives. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by describing the return shape and cap, and it covers input constraints and alternative routing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this facet-query 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, and the description adds genuine meaning beyond it: the AND vs OR logic, the rule that both conditions must pass when supplied together, and that targetType narrows to action/memory/observation. The added interaction semantics push it above baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Find) and resource (IDs categorized by stored dimension:value facets), making the retrieval-by-facet purpose unambiguous. It also names sibling tools memory_facet_tag and memory_recall, so an agent can distinguish it from the write-side and content-search alternatives without inspecting schemas.

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?

Explicitly states the required condition (supply at least one of matchAll/matchAny), the combined-condition rule when both are present, and routes to alternatives ('Use memory_facet_tag to add facets or memory_recall for content-based retrieval'). This gives clear when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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