perseus_memory

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds context: zero-network, FTS5, and that it returns a results array with mode and count. No contradictions exist. The description adds value beyond 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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of only three sentences. It front-loads the core purpose and usage, with no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 the tool has 13 parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and basic return structure. It does not detail parameter semantics, but the schema and output schema compensate. Slightly more explanation of parameter interactions could improve completeness, but it is sufficient.

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 100% (all 13 parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. However, many parameter descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Value for project parameter') and the tool description does not add further explanation. Thus score remains at 3.

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 clearly states the tool searches local project memory (FTS5, zero-network) for past decisions and architecture notes, using the verb 'search' and resource 'local project memory'. It also distinguishes itself from perseus_mimir by specifying 'in-workspace recall' vs 'cross-session persistent facts'.

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 description explicitly states when to use the tool ('in-workspace recall') and when not to use it ('for cross-session persistent facts, use perseus_mimir instead'). It also notes it is 'read-only', providing clear guidance on appropriate usage.

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