memory_query

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'Body is JSON' which is schema information, and fails to mention rate limits, authorization needs, destructive potential, or return behavior. The tool could be read-only or write; no clarity.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no extraneous information. However, it lacks structured sections like output hints or parameter details, which would improve usability without adding much length.

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 simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is incomplete. It omits details on the expected query format (e.g., keys like 'filters', 'time_windows', 'semantic') and the return value, despite the presence of an output schema. The agent is left to guess both input and output structures.

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 0% and the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema. It says 'Body is JSON' but does not explain the expected structure, fields, or format of the JSON query. The user must infer how to compose the body, leading to potential errors.

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 'Run a structured memory query' with filters, time-windows, and semantic search, which conveys a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like memory_search (likely keyword-based) and memory_recall (likely by ID) by emphasizing structured querying, but does not explicitly differentiate.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as memory_search or memory_recall. The description lacks context on scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, making it difficult for an agent to decide which tool fits.

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