mnemosyne_spine_assignments

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

The readOnlyHint annotation marks this as safe to call, and the description adds behavioral context beyond the annotation: results are newest-first, spine_type restricts only the assignment page while counts remain whole-vault, and include_taxonomy pulls in the global spine tree. No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no waste. The core purpose and return shape are front-loaded in sentence one, use cases in sentence two, and the optional taxonomy flag in sentence three. Every sentence earns its place.

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 carries the burden of describing return values, which it does: assignments, whole-vault counts, and optionally the taxonomy tree. The readOnly annotation covers the safety profile and the schema documents all parameters, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it 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; the description adds real value on top by explaining that spine_type values can be fed back as spine_type_filter into mnemosyne_memory_query, clarifying the cross-tool contract, and by noting the pagination-vs-counts semantic where spine_type scopes the page but not the counts.

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 uses a specific verb ('returns') with a precise resource ('memory-to-spine assignments') and clear scope ('one vault, newest first' + 'per-spine counts for the whole vault'). It clearly distinguishes itself from the close sibling mnemosyne_memory_query by stating its output feeds that tool's spine_type_filter parameter rather than querying memories directly.

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?

It gives three concrete use cases: verifying spine placement, reading vault composition, and obtaining taxon ids for use in mnemosyne_memory_query. It references the sibling alternative where the output is consumed. It lacks an explicit 'use X instead when...' exclusion, but the named use cases provide solid routing guidance.

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