mnemosyne_memory_ask

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses the RAG pipeline stages, a concrete latency ceiling (~30 seconds), and the critical caveat that the prose is a model rewording of sources rather than verbatim data. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs to plan around.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively adds mechanism, latency, and caveats, all of which earn their place. Slightly repetitive in its source-verification advice ('read the Sources list... Check them before you trust the answer'), which costs it the top mark.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what is returned (prose answer plus a Sources list) and the latency cost. Combined with the readOnly annotation and full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the vault default and the refusal behavior for out-of-scope vaults. The description adds no parameter syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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+resource ('Ask a question and get a prose answer grounded in the vault, plus the memories it drew on') and explains the mechanism (full local RAG pipeline with retrieval, lexical fusion, re-rank). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling mnemosyne_memory_query as 'the better retriever,' so an agent can distinguish them without opening 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('reach for it whenever you need to find something,' 'at its best on why, who and how questions that span many memories') and names the alternative (mnemosyne_memory_query) for fetching sources directly. It even instructs the agent to read the Sources list and verify before trusting the prose, which is actionable routing guidance.

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