perseus_mneme

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it is read-only (consistent with readOnlyHint), falls back to local FTS5 if Mneme server is unreachable, and clarifies that perseus_mimir is a deprecated alias. No contradiction with 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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, behavior, naming. Front-loaded with core functionality. No redundant or filler content.

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's moderate complexity (4 optional params, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage guidelines, safety (read-only), fallback, and naming. It contrasts with a sibling tool, explains the type of knowledge stored, and mentions data source. No gaps identified.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on individual parameters, but the overall context (cross-session facts, persistent memory) helps understand the query parameter's purpose. However, it doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.

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 queries an external Mneme memory server for cross-session, curated facts. It uses specific verbs ('Query') and resources ('Mneme memory server'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool perseus_memory, which is for 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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('long-lived knowledge (bug patterns, design decisions)') and when to prefer an alternative ('For fast local recall, prefer perseus_memory'). Also notes fallback behavior and naming priority.

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