perseus_mimir

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds 'Read-only' which is consistent. It also discloses behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'falls back to local FTS5 if Mneme is unreachable' and notes the deprecated alias. No contradiction.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no extraneous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 that the tool has an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, fallback behavior, alias information, and is complete for a read-only query tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, but it does provide context for the query parameter ('BM25 FTS5 search query') which is consistent. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Query the EXTERNAL Mneme memory server for cross-session, curated facts that survive across workspaces.' It uses a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('EXTERNAL Mneme memory server'), and distinguishes from sibling tool perseus_memory by noting the different use case (long-lived knowledge vs. fast local recall).

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use for long-lived knowledge') and when to prefer an alternative ('For fast local recall, prefer perseus_memory'). It also mentions fallback behavior ('falls back to local FTS5 if Mneme is unreachable').

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