memory.episode.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 behavioral transparency. It only mentions the query capability and filter dimensions, but does not disclose what happens on successful query (return format, pagination behavior, whether it returns full memories or just IDs), what happens when no results are found, or any error conditions. The output schema exists but the description does not reference it.

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 communicates the core purpose and main filter dimensions. It is appropriately sized for a simple query tool, though it could be front-loaded more with the return value hint.

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 4 parameters (0 required), an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description should be more complete. The output schema suggests structured return data, but the description doesn't hint at what fields are returned. For a query tool with no required parameters, the description should clarify what a query with no filters returns (e.g., all episodes? default limit only?). It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description mentions the three filter dimensions (project, outcome, tag) which correspond to three of the four parameters, but does not describe the `limit` parameter or any constraints (e.g., exact match vs partial match, case sensitivity, or how multiple filters combine). This adds marginal value over raw parameter names but is incomplete.

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 verb ('Consulta' = query) and the resource ('memórias episódicas' = episodic memories), and provides three filter dimensions (project, outcome, tag). It is specific and distinguishes this tool from siblings like memory.query (general memory query) or memory.episode.create (episode creation), though it could be more explicit about the difference.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like memory.query, memory.episode.create, or the other memory query tools (memory.pr.query, memory.query_at, etc.). There is no mention of prerequisites, ordering constraints, or when not to use this tool.

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