mem_open_work

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavior. It mentions the tool returns 'deterministic' open work and can be scoped to a session, which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not discuss read-only nature, error handling, or what the output contains.

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 description is a single, clear sentence of 12 words, front-loading the core purpose and optional scoping. No wasted words.

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?

Given no output schema and many sibling tools, the description provides a high-level purpose but omits return format, potential errors, and how the tool fits into the larger workflow. It is adequate but not thorough.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that project_key identifies the project and session_id optionally scopes to a persisted session. This adds meaning beyond the parameter names and types, but lacks details on formats or valid values.

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?

Description explicitly states the tool returns deterministic open work for a specific project, optionally filtered by a session. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like mem_get (general retrieval) and mem_search (search).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. The purpose implies it's for retrieving open work items, but there is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or comparison with mem_get or mem_search.

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